Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Anne Padma Kumari vs The Special Deputy Collector on 5 August, 2026
Author: B Krishna Mohan
Bench: B Krishna Mohan
APHC010064392020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3233]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 855/2020
Between:
1. ANNE PADMA KUMARI, W/O GIRIJA BABU, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, OCC- SERVICE, R/O CHICAGO,USA, REPRESENTED
BY GPA HOLDER, B.VENKATESWARA RAO, ADVOCATE, R/O
HYDERABAD.
2. R. BHARATHI DEVI,, W/O RAJA BABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75
YEARS, R/O H.NO.9-16-38, C.B.M. COMPOUND. WALTAIR UP
LANDS, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. SMT. DURGA SHAKUNTHALA DEVI, , W/O DURGA PRASADA
RAO, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O MUNICIPAL COLONY, LABBI
PETA, VIJAYAWADA.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, A.P.I.I.C,
VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. PULLA SURYA JANARDHANA RAO, S/O LATE
PARAMATAYYA, -R/O GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE,
ANAKAPALLE MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
3. PILLA BALARAMASWAMYNAIDU, S/O LATE CHINA PRADESI,
R/O GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
4. PILLA PARADESI NAIDU, , S/O BALARAMAYYA NAIDU, R/O
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
5. PILLA BHASKARA RAO, S/O BALARAMAYYA NAIDU, RIO
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
2
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
6. PILLA VENKATA RAO, S/O BALARAMAYYA NAIDU, R/O
GAVARAPA EM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002.
7. PILLA KONDAYYANAIDU, S/O BALARAMAYYA NAIDU, RIO
GAVARAPA EM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002.
8. PILLA SIVA SATYANARAYANA, S/O BALARAMAYYA NAIDU,
R/O GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANA.KAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNA M DISTRICT- 531002
9. PILLA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O LATE CHINA
PARADESI NAIDU, R/O GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE,
ANAKAPALLE MANUAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
10. PILLA CHINA PARADESI NAIDU, S/O SATYANARAYANA
MURTHY, RIO GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE
MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
11. PILLA SRINIVAS, S/O SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, RIO
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
12. PILLA SRINIVAS, S/O SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, R/O
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
13. VENKATARAMANAMMA, , D/O SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,
RIO GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
14. CHADARAM NOOKARAJU, S/O BALARAMA SWAMY, R/O
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
15. KANDREGULA ARASINGA RAO, S/O K.KRISHNAMMA, RIO
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
16. JERRIOTHULA KAMARAJU, S/O SOMINADU, R/O
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
17. SMT KONATHALA NOOKARAJANIRNA, ., S/O
K.ADINARAYANA, RJO GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE,
ANAKAPALLE MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
3
18. PEELA RAMA RAO, , S/O P.NOOKARAJU, R/O
GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531002
19. BUDDA SATYANARAYANA, S/O RAMULU, (RESPONDENT
NOS.14 TO 19 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
SRI BVAS NAIDU, R/O GAVARAPALEM VILLAGE,
ANAKAPALLE MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-
531002)
20. GANTA VENKATA SESHAIAH, S/O G.SANJEEVA RAO,
OWNER OF SESHAMAHAL THEATRE, GAJUWAKA,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
…RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in
the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may
be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order
dated 15/11/2018 in I.A.No.525 of 2018 in O.P.No.18 of 2002 on the file
of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, At AnakapalleIA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased Pleased to stay all further proceedings in OP.No.18 of 2002
on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Anakapalle and passCounsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP)
2. V V PRABHAKARA RAO
4The Court made the following Order:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent.
2. This revision was filed against the orders in I.A.No.525 of 2018 in
L.A.O.P. No.18 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalle dated 15.11.2018. The above said interlocutory application
was filed by the petitioners before the trial court in the above said
L.A.O.P. to set aside the exparte order dated 07.10.2004 by receiving
the claim statement of the petitioners/ 20th to 22nd claimants. But the
said application was dismissed solely on the ground that when the trial
court compared the descriptive particulars of the petitioners/ 20th to 22nd
claimants with that of the particulars noted in Section 30 and Section
31(2) of Land Acquisition Act was found that the husband’s name of
R.Bharathi Devi is shown as late Raja Babayya whereas her husband’s
name is noted as Balayya in L.A. records including reference under
Section 30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act. In view of the said
discrepancy in the identity particulars of one of the petitioners the said
application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this revision was
filed.
3. In view of the above said facts and circumstances the petitioners
if they are claimants, they shall produce necessary proof with respect to
their identity to match with the relevant records for the purpose of
5making claim and they shall file the same along with the application as
prayed earlier. For the said purpose, the petitioners are given
permission to file fresh application along with necessary proof before
the court below to consider their request if cause survives if any. On
filing of such fresh application by the petitioners the court below is
directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with law without
reference to the order passed by the trial court dated 15.11.2018 which
is assailed in this revision petition. Fresh opportunity shall be given duly
to the parties concerned before passing orders afresh on merits subject
to the survival of cause.
4. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of. Interim order if any
deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
05.08.2026
NNN
