Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Siddammagari Hanumantha Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.326 & 396 of 8025
W.A.N0.326 of 2025
Siddammagari Hanumantha Reddy,
S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, aged about 52 years,
R/o. Gajarampalli Village & Post, Pamidi Mandal,
Ananthapuram District.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat building at Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District & 7 others.
... hespondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. K. Srinivas
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Government Pleader for
Revenue
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 :Mr. P. Narasimhulu
W.A.No.396 of 2025
Yeddula Tulasamma,
W/o. Sambasiva Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
Gajarampalli Village,
Pamidi Mandal,
Ananthapuram District & three others. .. Appellants
Versus
HCJ & RRR, J
WAs_326&396_2023
Siddammagari Hanumantha Reddy,
S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o. Gajarampalli Village & Post,
Pamidi Mandal,
Ananthapuram District & four others. ...nespondents
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. P. Narasimhulu
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. K. Srinivas
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Government Pleader for
Revenue.
Dt.:16.10.20235
Two writ petitions came to be filed bearing Nos.9225 of 2015
8 15491 of 2015.
1.1 In both the petitions, the petitioners were claiming
possession over approximately Ac.0.17 cents of land situate in
Gajarampalli Village, Pamidi Mandal in Anantapuram District.
1.2 In both the petitions, the petitioners alleged that their
possession was sought to be interfered with by the private
respondents with the help of the official respondents.
2. Both the petitions came to be disposed of on different
dates with a direction to the authorities not to interfere with the
possession of the subject land of the petitioners.
HCJ & RRR, J
WAs_326&396_2023
3. Counsel for the parties, who are petitioners before the
writ Court, do not deny that in both the sets of petitions, the
direction was similar, protecting the possession of the petitioners.
4. This, in our opinion, is impermissible inasmuch as only
one set of the petitioners could be in possession of the subject land.
Counsel for the parties agreed that the matters can be remanded to
the writ Court for consideration afresh on merits.
5. Be that as it may, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the
judgments and orders in WP.No.9225 of 2015 dated 09.11.2082
and WP.No.13491 of 2015 dated 20.12.2022, are set aside.
W.P.Nos.9225 of 2015 & 13491 of 2015 shall stand remanded to
the Writ Court for consideration afresh. However, till such time as
the matters are listed before the writ Court, status quo be
maintained on spot. No order as to costs.
Office to post W.P.Nos.9225 of 2015 & 15491 of 2015 before
the writ Court, having the provision as per the Roster, after three
weeks.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Vil
HCJ & RRR, J
WAs_326&396_2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAd SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.A.Nos.526 & 3596 of 2025
Dt:16.10.2025
Vil
