YADALA VENKATA RATNAM vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH — WP/15224/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010289832026

Filing Number

WP/23147/2026

Filing Date

04-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/15224/2026

Registration Date

04-Jun-2026

Judge

Subba Reddy Satti

Coram

Subba Reddy Satti

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVP., (MISC.MATTERS) ( 35 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.YADALA VENKATA RATNAM

    Adv. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI

  2. 2.Shaik Chand Basha,

  3. 3.Nannuri Peda Subbaiah,

  4. 4.Singaraju Veeramma,

  5. 5.Ginne Murali,

  6. 6.Neerukattu Balamma,

  7. 7.Varikuti Ramanamma,

  8. 8.Varikuti Chiranjeevi,

  9. 9.Singaraju Ramulamma,

  10. 10.Shaik Silar Saheb,

  11. 11.Sayyad Pedda Peera @ Peera

  12. 12.Siddavatam Sarojanamma,

  13. 13.Siddavatam Vara Lakshmamma,

  14. 14.Kavuluri Khasim bee,

  15. 15.Shaik Nazi Malang,

  16. 16.Garikapati Ramanaiah,

  17. 17.Nannuri Lakshmana,

  18. 18.. Yagateela Narayana,

  19. 19.Nula Malyadri,

  20. 20.Ragipati Lakshmi,

  21. 21.Boyalla Narayanareddy,

  22. 22.Bandaru Sreenivasulu,

  23. 23.Shaik Pedda Rasool

  24. 24.Akula Mohan Rao,

  25. 25.Chitturi Ramadevi,

  26. 26.Vajrala Subbarao,

  27. 27.Shaik Allabaksh,

  28. 28.Tavva Malyadri Reddy,

  29. 29.Derarapu Chandra Babu,

  30. 30.Kethu Venugopal Reddy,

  31. 31.Yalamandala Rahimulla,

  32. 32.Shaik Shamsur,

  33. 33.Kancharla Naga Maha Lakshmi

  34. 34.Syba Ramanamma,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

  2. 2.The District Collector,

    Adv. GP FOR REVENUE

  3. 3.The Panchayat Executive Officer,

  4. 4.The Panchayat Secretary,

  5. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

  6. 6.The Thasildar,

  7. 7.The Grama/Sachivalayam Surveyor,

  8. 8.The Special Collector,

    Adv. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

  9. 9.Union of India,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Subba Reddy SattiView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 15224/2026 Court's Decision: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition, directing respondents 3, 4, and 6 (Gram Panchayat authorities) not to interfere with petitioners' properties in Pamuru Town marked for NH-167B highway widening without following due legal procedure. The court accepted the Gram Panchayat's written submission that authorities were not interfering with petitioners' possession and enjoyment of the properties. Key Reasoning: The petitioner-residents challenged markings on their RCC buildings for demolition related to highway widening, alleging violation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, after the revenue authorities denied making any markings and the Gram Panchayat assured non-interference, the court found no purpose in prolonging proceedings and disposed the petition at the admission stage with consent of all counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    Admission (Panchayat Raj)

    Subba Reddy Satti

  4. 04-Jun-2026

    Subba Reddy SattiView PDF

  5. 04-Jun-2026

    Subba Reddy SattiView PDF

  6. 04-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 04-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/15224/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 15224/2026 Court's Decision: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition, directing respondents 3, 4, and 6 (Gram Panchayat authorities) not to interfere with petitioners' properties in Pamuru Town marked for NH-167B highway widening without following due legal procedure. The court accepted the Gram Panchayat's written submission that authorities were not interfering with petitioners' possession and enjoyment of the properties. Key Reasoning: The petitioner-residents challenged markings on their RCC buildings for demolition related to highway widening, alleging violation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, after the revenue authorities denied making any markings and the Gram Panchayat assured non-interference, the court found no purpose in prolonging proceedings and disposed the petition at the admission stage with consent of all counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case