P.PADMAVATHI, VIJAYAWADA vs PRL SECY, MAUD DEPT., HYD & 2 OT Advocate - GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP, ,ELEVATED AS JUDGE — WP/6117/2016
Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 16th June 2026.
CNR: APHC010391162016
Filing Number
WP/32399/2016
Filing Date
24-Feb-2016
Registration No
WP/6117/2016
Registration Date
24-Feb-2016
Judge
Harinath.n
Coram
Harinath.n
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WP ( 28 )
Sub-Category
MUNICIPALITY AND URBAN DEVP.(MISC.MATTERS) ( 30 )
Judicial Branch
WRIT Section
Decision Date
16-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Last updated 17-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.P.PADMAVATHI, VIJAYAWADA
Adv. V S R ANJANEYALU
Respondent(s)
-
1.PRL SECY, MAUD DEPT., HYD & 2 OT Advocate - GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP, ,ELEVATED AS JUDGE
-
2.A.P.Capital Region Development Authority,
-
3.Gollapudi Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary
Adv. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Harinath.nView PDF
Case Summary: WP 6117/2016 - P. Padmavathi v. PRL Secretary MAUD Dept & Others The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition by affirming interim orders passed on 25.02.2016, directing respondent authorities to lay a channel through the petitioner's land in Gollapudi Village while strictly adhering to due process of law. The court emphasized that this direction must be complied with in accordance with law and rejected the petitioner's constitutional claims regarding interference with land possession, finding the ordered channel construction permissible within legal parameters. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Jun-2017
Admission (Municipal Admn.)
Case Is In Onwards List
-
24-Feb-2016
Case filed
Registration No. WP/6117/2016
Case Summary: WP 6117/2016 - P. Padmavathi v. PRL Secretary MAUD Dept & Others The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition by affirming interim orders passed on 25.02.2016, directing respondent authorities to lay a channel through the petitioner's land in Gollapudi Village while strictly adhering to due process of law. The court emphasized that this direction must be complied with in accordance with law and rejected the petitioner's constitutional claims regarding interference with land possession, finding the ordered channel construction permissible within legal parameters. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts