S GOVINDA RAJULU vs THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR REVENUE — WP/14478/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010280892026

Filing Number

WP/22488/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

WP/14478/2026

Registration Date

14-May-2026

Judge

Y. Lakshmana Rao

Coram

Y. Lakshmana Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

REVENUE (MISC.MATTERS) ( 37 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.S GOVINDA RAJULU

    Adv. K SRINIVAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR REVENUE

  2. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

  3. 3.The Tahsildar,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 14478/2026 S. Govinda Rajulu sought a writ of mandamus to declare the Tahsildar's interference with his peaceful possession of 0.88-acre land (Sy. No. 101/3A) in Kunjegaunivur Village as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution. The High Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage after the Assistant Government Pleader confirmed the petitioner continues in peaceful possession post-re-survey and that revenue authorities do not require the land. The court directed respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession except through due process of law if the land is required for any future purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-May-2026

    Admission (Revenue)

    Y. Lakshmana Rao

  4. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/14478/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 14478/2026 S. Govinda Rajulu sought a writ of mandamus to declare the Tahsildar's interference with his peaceful possession of 0.88-acre land (Sy. No. 101/3A) in Kunjegaunivur Village as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution. The High Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage after the Assistant Government Pleader confirmed the petitioner continues in peaceful possession post-re-survey and that revenue authorities do not require the land. The court directed respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession except through due process of law if the land is required for any future purpose. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case