SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 26219

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Kalluri Hussain – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 3442/2025



APHC010065352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3442/2025 Between:

Kalluri Hussain ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. NALLANAGULA LALITHA SREE Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:-

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

“…pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in making efforts in dispossessing the petitioner from the house site situated at Survey No.738 of extent Ac.0.3 cents situated at Itikyala Village, Kolimigundla Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh, without following procedure established by the law as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and the act of authorities is against the principle laid down by the Honble Apex court in the case of Rame Gowda V/s M Varadappa Naidu Citation 2003 LawSuit (SC) 1248 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere over the petitioners land of extent Ac.0.3 cents in Survey No.738 situated at Itikyala Village, Koiimigundia Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh, except due process of law and to pass such other order or orders.…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his argument to the extent that to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

4. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 11.02.2025

KBN

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3442 of 2025 Date: 11.02.2025

KBN

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top