Sri.Podali Manoher vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP — WP/14539/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: APHC010281462026

Filing Number

WP/22537/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

WP/14539/2026

Registration Date

14-May-2026

Judge

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

Coram

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

MUNICIPALITY AND URBAN DEVP.(MISC.MATTERS) ( 30 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sri.Podali Manoher

    Adv. S S BHATT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

  2. 2.The Tirupati Urban Development Authority Tirupati

  3. 3.The District Collector

    Adv. GP FOR REVENUE

  4. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer

  5. 5.The Tahsildar

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-May-2026

    Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF

  3. 15-May-2026

    Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/14539/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Tirupati Urban Development Authority (Respondent 2) to abstain from interfering with petitioner Sri Podali Manoher's land (3.22 acres in Avilala village) and demolishing structures thereon, while permitting respondents to proceed only through due process of law. The court accepted oral undertaking from respondents not to interfere with the property. The case was adjourned post-summer vacation 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 15-May-2026

    Admission (Municipal Admn.)

    Tuhin Kumar Gedela

  5. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/14539/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/14539/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Tirupati Urban Development Authority (Respondent 2) to abstain from interfering with petitioner Sri Podali Manoher's land (3.22 acres in Avilala village) and demolishing structures thereon, while permitting respondents to proceed only through due process of law. The court accepted oral undertaking from respondents not to interfere with the property. The case was adjourned post-summer vacation 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case