Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sanapureddy Rajasekhar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 March, 2026

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

APHC010126142026
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                   [3558]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

                                 PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 6935/2026

Between:

  1. SANAPUREDDY RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE CHINAKONDA
     REDDY,   AGED
               GED    72  YEARS,  OCC. CULTIVATION,  R/O.
     PAKKIRAPALLE VILLAGE, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA CITY, YSR
     KADAPA DISTRICT
            DISTRICT-516001.

                                                          ...PETITIONER

                                   AND

  1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO
     GOVERNMENT,    L.A.    J  DEPARTMENT,      SECRETARIAT,
     VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
                                   DISTRICT-522237.
                                            522237.

  2. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, KADAPA REP. BY
     ITS CHAIRMAN, KADAPA DISTRICT.

  3. AVULA SUBBA REDDY, (DIED).

  4. AUVULA PRASANNA KUMARI, W/O. SUBBA REDDY, AGED 40
     YEARS, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.1 THAGEDUPALLE VILLAGE,
     V.N. PALLE MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT
                               DISTRICT-516502.

  5. AUVULA DHARIKA REDDY ALIAS BABY ALIAS THANU, D/O. SUBBA
     REDDY, MINOR, R/O. D.NO.1, THAGEDUPALLE VILLAGE, V.N.
     PALLE MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT
                          DISTRICT-516502.

                                                      ...RESPONDENT(S):
                                         2
                                                                     CMR,J & GTK,J
                                                                 W.P.No.6935 of 2026

      Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the
respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent/District Legal Services
Authority, Kadapa, rejecting the application vide I.A. SR.No.7422/25 in
O.S.No.678 of 2022 for amendment of Lok Adalat Award by incorporating the
suit schedule and survey numbers in the award, which is illegal, arbitrary,
violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative
of Principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the 2nd respondent receive
the I.A. SR.No.7422/25 in O.S.No.678 of 2022 and amend the Lok Adalat
Award by incorporating the suit Scheduled property along with survey
numbers and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

      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 to
direct the 2nd respondent to receive the application in I.A. SR.No.7422/25 in
O.S.No.678 of 2022 on the file of the court of the II Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Kadapa for amendment of Lok Adalat award passed by the 2nd
respondent by incorporating the suit scheduled property and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. SUBBA RAO JANDHYAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
                                          3
                                                                    CMR,J & GTK,J
                                                                W.P.No.6935 of 2026

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

2. An award was passed in the Lok Adalat as per the terms of settlement arrived at by both the parties. Thereafter, an application was filed by the writ petitioner seeking amendment of the said award relating to the suit schedule property and its survey numbers. The said application was returned with an office objection as to how the application is maintainable. But, without re-presenting the said application after answer the objection, he has filed this writ petition, stating that the said application was rejected. In fact, the application was not rejected. It was only returned to explain as to how the application is maintainable. The writ petitioner as well can re-present the application stating as to how the application is maintainable. Therefore, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition.

3. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to comply with the objection and re-present the application. If the Lok Adalat still refuses to entertain the application by passing any order to that effect, he is at liberty to approach this Court and challenge the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 13.03.2026 MDP