SIDDAMMAGARI HANUMANTHA REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Oct 2025
- Bench
- CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 31.10.2025 MDP ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
WRIT PETITION NO: 13491/2015 WRIT PETITION Between: SIDDAMMAGARI HANUMANTHA REDDY,, S/O. SANJEEVA REDDY, 1. SIDDAMMAGARI HANUMANTHA REDDY,, S/O. SANJEEVA REDDY, SIDDAMMAGARI HANUMANTHA REDDY,, S/O. SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE & POST, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. & POST, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. & POST, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
PETITIONER
AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARIAT SECRETARIAT SECRETARY, SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT SECRETARY, BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT, REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ANANTAPURAM. ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ANANTAPURAM DIVISION, 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ANANTAPURAM DIVISION, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ANANTAPURAM DIVISION, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ANANTAPURAM, ANANT THE TAHSILDAR, PAMIDI MANDAL, PAMIDI, ANANTAPURAM THE TAHSILDAR, PAMIDI MANDAL, PAMIDI, ANANTAPURAM 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PAMIDI MANDAL, PAMIDI, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. YEDDULA TULASAMMA, W/O. SAMBASIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 5. YEDDULA TULASAMMA, W/O. SAMBASIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT YEDDULA TULASAMMA, W/O. SAMBASIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, 45 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, 45 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
6. YEDDULA TIRUPAL REDDY, S/O. SARABHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT YEDDULA TIRUPAL REDDY, S/O. SARABHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT YEDDULA TIRUPAL REDDY, S/O. SARABHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, 40 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, 40 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. YEDDULA SAMBASIVA REDDY, S/O. SARABHA REDDY, AGED 7. YEDDULA SAMBASIVA REDDY, S/O. SARABHA REDDY, AGED YEDDULA SAMBASIVA REDDY, S/O. SARABHA REDDY, AGED 2 CMR,J W.P.No.13491 of 2015 ABOUT 43 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
8. YEDDULA PRATAP REDDY, S/O. SARABHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GAJARAMPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM 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 to Issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to disposes the petitioner from his land in Sy.No. Sy.No.266/A2B an extent of Ac.0.17 cents situated at Gajarampalli Village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapuram District, even though there is lease in favour of the petitioner vide D.Dis. No.430/908, dated 03-01-2015 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners land in Sy.No. SyNo.266/A2B an extent of Ac.0.17, forthwith, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 17715 OF 2015 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners land in Sy.No. Sy.No.266/A2B an extent of Ac.0.17 cents situated at Gajarampalli Village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapuram District, pending disposal of the main writ petition, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 dated 20-12-2022 in WP.No 13491 of 2015 and to dismiss the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 Permit the petitioners to implead as a party respondent no. 5 to 8 3 CMR,J W.P.No.13491 of 2015 in the present writ petition i.e., W.P.No. 13491 of 2015 as well as LA, pending before this Horible Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 4 CMR,J W.P.No.13491 of 2015 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Mr. M.Ram Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr. K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that the grievance of the writ petitioner has been redressed.
Permission is accorded.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 31.10.2025 MDP ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the 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 31 Oct 2025. The bench was CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY.
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.