SOMU SASIKANTH REDDY v. THE STATE OF AP
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are certain disputes with regard to the subject property and injunction is granted by the civil Court. But the petitioners are not party to the said suit and in fact by virtue of injunction, some…
- Para 44. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submitted that though the petitioners 4 are not party to the suit but the properties in Sy.No.22/1, 22/2 in an extent of Ac.1.60cents is the subject matter in the said suit in…
Judgment
Cause title
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 direct the respondent No- 4 and 5 not to interfere with the possession, enjoyment and ownership of the petitioners in Pedamudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. KODATI RAMYA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondent No- 4 and 5 in interfering with the 1st petitioners peaceful possession, enjoyment and ownership in Survey No. 22-1 admeasuring 0.81 cents and in survey No- 22-2 admeasuring Ac. 0.79 cents of 2nd petitioner in Papayyapalli Revenue Village, Peddamudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, without any recourse to law, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No-4 and 5 not interfere with the possession, enjoyment and ownership of the petitioners in Pedamudiam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and to pass...
Heard M/s. Kodati Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are certain disputes with regard to the subject property and injunction is granted by the civil Court. But the petitioners are not party to the said suit and in fact by virtue of injunction, some third parties and revenue authorities are interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submitted that though the petitioners 4 are not party to the suit but the properties in Sy.No.22/1, 22/2 in an extent of Ac.1.60cents is the subject matter in the said suit in O.S.No.11/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. Accordingly, the properties in Sy.No.22 wherein the petitioners are claiming, are also the subject property in the suit. Further he has submitted that, on enquiry, it revealed that the petitioners are in possession of the said property and the respondents are not interfering.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, by recording the submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents, the Writ Petition may be closed.
In view of the same, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.
20.11.2025 RD __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.31218 OF 2025
20.11.2025 RD
Questions this judgment answers
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 20 Nov 2025. The bench was D RAMESH.
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.