SABBI DEVI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 12456 OF 2019 Between:
1. SABBI DEVI, , W/O. SABBI SRINIVASA RAO AGED 30 YEARS, OCC DAILY LABOUR R/O 18-16-14, GOLLALAVEEDHI RAGAM PETA, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. DEYYALA DHANALAKSHMI,, W/O DEYYALA SATYA SEKHAR AGED 36 YEARS, OCC DAILY LABOUR R/O 17-2-59/266, KOTHAPAKALA, SANJAY NAGAR KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH
3. PATNALA VIJAYA,, W/O PATNALA SIVAJI AGED 31, OCC DAILY LABOUR R/O 13-4/1, PEDDADA ROAD PEDDAPUDI MANDAL, G.MAMIDADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, KRISHNA DISTRICT SECRETARIAT TULLURU,
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT KAKINADA
3. THE TAHASILDHAR, KAKINADA URBAN R.R. RAOD, KAKINADA
4. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KAKINADA, EAST 2 GODAVARI DISTRICT REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
5. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
6. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, SIDDHARDHA NAGAR, NFCL ROAD KAKINADA. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT REP BY ITS ASSISTANT ENGINEER ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in seeking to evict the Petitioners through oral instructions dated 26-08-2019 from the place of their inductment upon sanction of loan under PMRY scheme without any notice or opportunity and on extraneous political considerations as being arbitrary, illegal and violating Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to refrain from ever interfering with the inductment and construction of the Petitioners houses in Town Survey No 133/8P of Nookalama Manyam, Dairy Farm Layout, Kakinada Urban under PMRY scheme in the interest of justice and issue IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to refrain from interfering with the inductment and the construction of the house of the Petitioners in Town Survey No 133/8P of Nookalama Manyam, Dairy Farm Layout, Kakinada Urban with the loans sanctioned under PMRY scheme in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNIICIPALITIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN ANDHRA REGION) 3 The Court made the following
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri M. Sri Vijay, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Ms. Ch. Naga Jyothi, Ld. Counsel representing Sri M. Krishna Rao, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations.
Registry is directed to print the name of Sri M. Krishna Rao, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations.
Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, on instructions, seeks to withdraw this Writ Petition.
Request granted.
Operative part
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 11.03.2026 Mnr 4 64 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12456 OF 2019 Dt: 11.03.2026 Mnr
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 11 Mar 2026. The bench was GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.