K. M. MURALI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 25773/2020 Between:
1. K. M. MURALI,, S/O MUNI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, KALAVAGUNTA VILLAGE, PENUMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
THE TAHSILDAR, PENUMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, KALAVAGUNTA VILLAGE, PENUMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in trying to dispossess the Petitioner from the land in Sy.Nos. 491/2A1, 448/1B of Kalavagunta Village, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District, to an extent of Ac 0.62 cents and 0.90 cents 2 respectively and trying to convert the same into house sites and distribute it under Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki 111e, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to Law and further direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the subject land and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the land in Sy.Nos. 491/2A1, 448/1B of Kalavagunta Village, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District, to an extent of Ac 0.62 cents and 0.90 cents respectively forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders granted on 04-01-2021 in WP.No.25773/2020 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K RAMAMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.Nos.491/2A1, 448/1B of Kalavagunta Village, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District to an extent of Ac.0.62 cents and 0.90 cents respectively and trying to convert the same into house sites and distribute it under 8Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu9.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner9s land was not proposed at any point of time for the purpose of distribution of house site pattas under the welfare scheme of the state.
Operative part
4. In view of the same, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
24.09.2025 NNN _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
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 24 Oct 2025. The bench was B KRISHNA MOHAN.
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.