Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 168Nominal IndexVeerapaneni Venkata Subhashini & Anr. v. Arikatla Venkata Rathnam & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111Sri Durga Mahila Podupu Sangam Self Help Group v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 112Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 113Varampati Charan Kumar Reddy & Others v. State...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 168
Nominal Index
Veerapaneni Venkata Subhashini & Anr. v. Arikatla Venkata Rathnam & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111
Sri Durga Mahila Podupu Sangam Self Help Group v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 112
Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 113
Varampati Charan Kumar Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 114
Sri Sai Wines v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 115
Sree Teja and Tejasree Developers & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 116
Sri Venkateswara Institute of Technology v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 117
Tellamekala Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 118
Badeti Sridhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 119
A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 120
Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121
Sattaru Ram Mohan Rao v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122
Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124
Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125
Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 126
Kunisetty Hymavathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127
A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128
Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors., W.P. No. 12871 of 2025
Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 129
N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130
Vice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131
Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132
M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (along with connected appeals), 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133
APSRTC v. Smt. P. Jyothi Chittoor & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134
Gudala Lovalakshmi & Anr. v. Marthi Ramanababu @ Bujji & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135
Guduru Uma Maheswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136
Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137
S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138
Kum. C. Rohini Roy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 139
U. Kalpana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140
X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 141
Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 142
Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143
Mekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu v. Tamada Ratna Kumari, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144
M. Annapurna Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145
N. Anjinaiah @ Sakkara Anjineyulu (Died) by LRs v. N. Anumanna, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146
R. G. Maddilety v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147
K.G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148
V. Seenaiah v. Nellore Sudhakar & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149
M. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 150
T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151
Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152
Mathi Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. v. Pushadapu Sambasiva Rao & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 153
Sornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 154
P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 155
Garikina Satyarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 156
Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy & Ors. v. Challa Narasamma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 157
X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 158
Mogal Shuaibulla Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 159
Mantri Vasantha Kumari & Ors. v. Sri Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 160
Kalla Gopi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 161
Narapuram Shravan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 162
Vyasyaraju Maheswara Rao v. Boyina Govinda Rajulu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 163
Naresh Rai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 164
Kathi Chinna Venkatasubbaiah v. G. Venkata Subba Reddy, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 165
All Saints Christian Education Society & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Batch Matters), 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 166
Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Gubbala Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors. (and connected matter), 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 167
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. D. Venugopal & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 168
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Veerapaneni Venkata Subhashini & Anr. v. Arikatla Venkata Rathnam & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the negligence of a deceased driver does not bar his legal heirs from claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 observing that the provision is a beneficial legislation under which proof of negligence is not relevant.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda allowed an appeal filed by the deceased driver's widow and minor son against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which had restricted the compensation to Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after holding that the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5 lakh by extending the benefit of Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Title: Sri Durga Mahila Podupu Sangam Self Help Group v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 112
The Andhra Pradesh High Court revoked the termination of dealership of a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer based on malpractice complaints and after an MLA's recommendation, noting that enquiry and procedure under State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 was not followed.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the termination of its dealership and the entrustment of the shop to another permanent dealer without an enquiry or opportunity of hearing.
The Court held:
"For cancellation of authorization of a permanent dealer or even a temporary dealer, an enquiry has to be conducted as contemplated under law.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, and the petitioner shall continue to operate the subject Fair Price Shop in accordance with the orders of this Court dated 10.09.2024. However, it is made clear that the respondent authorities are not precluded from taking appropriate action, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law and the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further made clear that any such action shall be taken independently, without being influenced by any observations made in this order."
Case Title: Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 113
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused facing criminal proceedings cannot be denied permission to travel abroad merely because the purpose of the visit is social or celebratory rather than urgent or fundamental. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 113]
Setting aside the trial court's refusal, the Court held that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 extends to personal and family engagements, including social and celebratory occasions.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, who is facing prosecution in a CID case, challenging the trial court's refusal to return his passport and permit him to travel to the USA.
The Court observed:
"In the instant case also, the petitioner intends to attend the housewarming ceremony of his first cousin in the USA. The request of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that the purpose of his visit abroad is purely social and celebratory in nature rather than urgent or fundamental. "
Case Title: Varampati Charan Kumar Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 114
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that candidates seeking appointment as Assistant Professors at Sri Venkateswara University–a state institution, have no vested right to insist upon the creation or retention of teaching posts to facilitate their participation in recruitment.
In doing so the court upheld the State's faculty rationalisation exercise in Sri Venkateswara University, the Court found no arbitrariness in the reduction of faculty positions and dismissed the challenge to the exercise.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao passed the order in a writ petition challenging the Government Orders implementing the faculty rationalisation exercise and the consequential recruitment notification issued by Sri Venkateswara University.
Case Title: Sri Sai Wines v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 115
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that vendors accepting payments through UPI apps such as PhonePe and Google Pay cannot be expected to verify the credentials or criminal antecedents of every customer before completing a transaction, and their bank accounts cannot be frozen merely because a payer is subsequently found to be involved in a cybercrime.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order directing the State Bank of India to defreeze a wine trader's bank account and observed that UPI-based payments have become a routine mode of payment in petty businesses and that freezing a merchant's account without any material showing its involvement in the alleged offence is contrary to law.
The Court observed:
"No doubt, with regard to transactions in petty businesses, amounts are being transferred between vendors and vendees through PhonePe, and Google Pay, etc., by using UPI (Unified Payments Interface). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if any individual purchases goods and pays through UPI using the above said applications, the vendor cannot verify the credentials of such individual. Without verifying the credentials of the petitioner and without noticing his involvement in any criminal case registered against the said individual, the authorities cannot freeze the petitioner's account."
Case Title: Sree Teja and Tejasree Developers & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 116
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has strongly deprecated the conduct of a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) who made the removal of land from the prohibited properties list conditional upon the petitioners withdrawing their pending writ petition, holding that executive authorities cannot use administrative powers to compel citizens to abandon judicial proceedings.
Allowing the petition, Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed:
"This Court takes serious exception to the conduct of the Revenue Divisional Officer during the pendency of the present writ petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer removed Acs. 4.03 cents of land from the prohibitory list, but made such removal condition upon the petitioners withdrawing the present writ petition. Such action on the part of a statutory authority is wholly impermissible. Access to justice and the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be subjected to conditions imposed by executive authorities. The State and its officers cannot use administrative powers as a means to compel citizens to abandon pending legal proceedings."
Case Title: Sri Venkateswara Institute of Technology v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 117
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an educational institution cannot be deprived of approval to commence an Artificial Intelligence diploma course merely because of a difference in the nomenclature adopted by the regulatory authorities.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava allowed a writ petition filed by a private unaided technical institution challenging the refusal of the State Board of Technical Education and Training to include its AICTE-approved Artificial Intelligence diploma course in the counselling process for the 2026–27 academic year.
The Court observed:
"In view of the above, as the petitioner was granted approval/permission for commencement of “Artificial Intelligence”, by both the AICTE and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 3rd respondent while issuing the impugned proceedings ought to have shown the said course also as one of the permitted course. On the premise of difference in the nomenclature, the petitioner cannot be deprived of approval granted by AICTE and the Government for commencement of the course 'Artificial Intelligence'. In the light of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to include the course 'Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)' in the counselling and permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling process and admit students to the course "Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence)"."
Case Title: Tellamekala Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 118
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a bonafide purchaser of a property earlier sold in a court auction cannot be prosecuted for cheating and forgery in the absence of material showing that he conspired with the vendor or had knowledge of the earlier court auction.
The order was passed by Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy while allowing a criminal petition filed by the purchaser seeking quashing of the criminal case against him.
The Court observed:
"As per the contents of the charge sheet, the court auction, in respect of the same schedule house property, though conducted on 25.10.2004, delivery of possession of the same was made on 05.08.2016 i.e. subsequent to Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.6079/2015, dated 30.09.2015 which was executed between the petitioner/A2 and respondent No.3/A1. Therefore, it can be inferred that the respondent No.3/A1 is having knowledge that the schedule house property was once auctioned in the Court, and knowing fully well that the said house property was got attached and it is under litigation, sold the same to the petitioner/A2 under Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015.However, merely, because respondent No.3/A1 is having knowledge, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner/A2 is also well aware of the said fact and conspiracy cannot be attributed to the petitioner/A2 that he conspired together with respondent No.3/A1...".
Case Title: Badeti Sridhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 119
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the absence of the appellant or his counsel is not a ground to dismiss a criminal appeal against conviction for non-prosecution, observing that the appellate court must decide the appeal on merits after examining the record.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a convict in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, setting aside the appellate court's order dismissing his criminal appeal for non-prosecution.
Examining the impugned order, the High Court found that its preamble itself recorded the presence of the petitioner's counsel, making the subsequent observation that the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution self-contradictory and legally unsustainable. It held that “once the appearance of counsel had been acknowledged, the appeal could not be treated as unrepresented”.
Case Title: A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 120
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 observing that the services of an advocate are rendered under a contract of personal service, which stands excluded from the definition of "service" under the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders of the District, State and National Consumer Commissions dismissing a consumer complaint against an advocate.
The Bench noted:
"The law is well settled that an Advocate/lawyer in connection with the service rendered by him in legal side is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act."
Case Title: Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after finding that the detaining authority failed to consider multiple bail orders granted to the detenu, holding that bail orders are vital material and their non-consideration vitiates the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta while allowing a writ petition filed by the detenu's wife challenging his preventive detention, which had been based on seven criminal cases registered under Section 7(B) read with Sections 8(A) or 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.
Case Title: Sattaru Ram Mohan Rao v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122
Allowing the plea of a final-year MBBS student, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences to award her one additional mark after finding that the repetition of a multiple-choice question in the Ophthalmology examination had unfairly deprived her of an opportunity to answer a different question.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava was hearing a writ petition filed by a final-year MBBS student seeking a direction to the University to award one compensatory mark in the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology examination, declare her as "passed" in the subject and permit her to commence her Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI).
The Court observed that the petitioner could not be placed at a disadvantage for a mistake committed by the University.
Case Title: Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that partition of a joint family property does not amount to "transfer of property" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and hence such a registered partition deed cannot be cancelled for failure to maintain senior citizen parents, by invoking Section 23 of the Act.
In doing so the court held that while a transfer contemplates passing of an interest in property from one person to another, a partition merely separates rights that already existed; thus the two cannot be equated.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda allowed a writ petition filed by a son and his wife challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, which had directed cancellation of a registered partition deed executed between the son and his mother.
Case Title: M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party which withdraws a writ petition without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition cannot subsequently invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction again on the same cause of action, observing that the remedy under Article 226 is deemed to have been abandoned.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam disposed of a second writ petition challenging the deduction of seigniorage charges (positive return, or carry, on issued notes and coins) from the running account (RA) bills of a contractor engaged by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL).
The Court held that the earlier writ petition on the same cause of action had been withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition.
Case Title: Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the action of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other authorities directing rice millers to replace fortified rice stocks that failed mandatory quality tests, holding that the authorities acted in accordance with the SOPs governing the Fortified Rice Scheme and that no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice was made out.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by rice millers challenging directions to replace fortified rice stocks supplied during the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2022-23.
Case Title: Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 126
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which an MBBS student discontinues studies for genuine reasons, like financial hardship or health issues, cannot be counted while computing the 4-year limit prescribed for clearing the First Professional exam of the course under Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2019 (GMER).
In doing so, the Court allowed an MBBS student to continue her course after holding that a literal interpretation of the Regulations would irrationally disqualify students whose temporary break has no bearing on their academic ability or competence.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the Regulations must be applied in line with their object. The Court observed:
"In the opinion of this Court, the break period in such genuine cases should not be counted for calculating four (04) years period as the break period has nothing to do with the ability or the competency of the student and the purport of the Regulations. After all, no student in normal circumstances would take a break from M.B.B.S., Course after securing admission going through gruelling preparation for NEET-UG entrance examination.If the Regulations referred to supra are to be understood in literal sense, that would lead to disqualification of students who have taken a break from education under compelling reasons and such an approach would make the Regulations irrational. Whenever, a Regulation or a statute is being understood, irrationality has to be avoided and rationality has to be read in, to make it constitutionally sane."
Case Title: Kunisetty Hymavathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to pay land acquisition compensation awarded in 1976, along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the award until payment, holding that failure to ensure payment of compensation after taking possession of land violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A.
In doing so, the Court held that once compensation is determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State has a duty to ensure that it is paid to the landowner without requiring any representation or request. Merely keeping the amount in revenue deposits does not absolve the State of its constitutional obligation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan disposed of a writ petition filed by a landowner whose land had been acquired in 1976 for distribution of house sites to members of the Vaddera community for government purposes.
Case Title: A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a judicial order rejecting interim relief cannot be sustained if it does not record any reasons, observing that "reasons are the back bone of every order" and that a one-line, non-speaking order violates settled principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, rejecting an employee's plea for interim relief and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application in accordance with law.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed the writ petition challenging the CAT's order rejecting interim relief passed under Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Case Title: Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 12871 of 2025
Granting interim relief to an M.S. General Surgery student with 78% locomotor disability, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Andhra Medical College to issue provisional course completion certificate and release the original academic documents to enable him to participate in the NEET Super Specialty counselling, earlier denied over lack of attendance.
While doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad also suo motu impleaded the concerned Professor of General Surgery, who allegedly harassed the petitioner on account of his disability, by repeatedly seeking medical fitness examinations and pressuring him to discontinue the course.
Case Title: Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 129
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus writ is ordinarily not maintainable in child custody disputes where a detailed inquiry into the welfare of the minor is required, particularly when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are already pending.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his two minor daughters, who were residing with their maternal grandmother following the death of their mother under suspicious circumstances.
Case Title: N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that estates authority cannot continue and decide proceedings against deceased persons without their legal representatives being first brought on record, and that such proceedings are void and a nullity in law.
A single judge bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam allowed a writ petition challenging an order passed under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
Explaining why the impugned order was legally unsustainable, the Court held:
"Unless the applications filed for bringing the legal representatives on record are first adjudicated, the authority could not have proceeded to decide the main proceedings. The very continuation of the proceedings against deceased persons, without substitution of their legal representatives, is contrary to the settled procedure known to law.
The very same authority cannot assume the role of an appellate authority and sit in appeal over its own decision. Such an exercise would be in flagrant violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice embodied in the maxim 'Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa', and the order would be liable to be quashed as being void ab initio."
Case Title: Vice Chairman-Managing Director, APSRTC & Anr. v. Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. connected with Mamidi Padmavathi & Ors. v. APSRTC & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 131
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that a public transport operator's duty of care outweighs a passenger's failure to exercise caution.
It thus enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a man who died after being run over by an APSRTC bus— from Rs. 3.85 lakh to Rs. 8.40 lakh.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma dismissed APSRTC's appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and allowed the claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Case Title: Sri Kudithi Gurayya & Anr. v. Smt. Akula Gowri Sudha & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 132
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot succeed on the weakness of the opposite party's case and must stand on the strength of its own case, observing that interim relief cannot be granted merely because the opposite party's counsel failed to answer a legal query posed by the Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed the appeal challenging the interim order passed in a writ petition arising under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
The Court observed:
"It would not be out of place to mention the settled principle of law that the plaintiff in a suit should not succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case. He has to stand on his own legs. Similarly, unless a case for grant of interim order was made out, the interim order could not be passed only on the failure of the respondents' counsel to state the grounds on which Writ of Certiorari could be issued. The respondents had not challenged the orders. It was for the writ petitioner to prima facie satisfy the grounds for issuance of a writ of Certiorari and the grounds involved in the writ petition and thereby make out a case for the grant of interim relief.
There is also no consideration of the case of the writ petitioners or of the respondents, even prima facie."
Case Title: M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (along with connected appeals)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a batch of five writ appeals, holding that a company which had litigated the same land dispute for decades without questioning the validity of statutory notices could not, after suffering adverse decisions, seek to reopen the matter by contending that the notices had been issued to its predecessor company following amalgamation.
Upholding a common order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 in each appeal
Observing that the plea regarding notices being issued to the company's predecessor was nothing but a belated attempt to prolong the litigation, the Court remarked:
"In our considered opinion, it is not open to appellant-petitioner to now subsequently raise question of issuance of notice to an incorrect entity while it is a matter of record that present petitioner has been pursuing this litigation right from beginning. Such a plea admittedly was never raised by petitioner, at any earlier point of time.
A totally unjustified plea regarding notice not being issued to the correct entity was then raised as a last-ditch effort, despite the petitioner itself having actively pursued earlier litigation, without ever raising such a plea. Admittedly, petitioner was aware of each proceeding and was pursuing it in its own capacity. Conduct of appellant/writ petitioner clearly amounts to abuse of process of law, which calls for imposition of cost."
Case Title: APSRTC v. Smt. P. Jyothi Chittoor & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 134
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while an appellant is ordinarily entitled to unconditionally withdraw an appeal under the CPC in a motor accident case, respondent party cannot insist that the appellate court decide the matter on merits in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objections.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma permitted APSRTC to withdraw its appeal challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award, but directed it to pay costs of Rs.5,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claimants' appearance before the High Court till deposit.
Observing that respondents cannot compel adjudication on merits when they themselves have not challenged the award, the Court held:
"Now, when the appellant is not pressing the appeal and is not insisting upon disposal on merits, the respondents cannot insist for disposal or dismissal of the appeal on merits.
What prevented the respondents from filing cross-objections or a crossappeal is not known. In the absence of cross-objections or cross appeal, the submission that in the event of enhancing the compensation, the respondent(s) will pay Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation is not sounding fair or logical."
Case Title: Gudala Lovalakshmi & Anr. v. Marthi Ramanababu @ Bujji & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a fresh DNA test may be directed in exceptional circumstances where a child's right to maintenance and determination of paternity is directly in issue, notwithstanding an earlier DNA report obtained during criminal proceedings.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed:
"The issue involved is not merely a dispute between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1. The rights of Petitioner No.2, a child claiming maintenance and recognition of paternity, are directly implicated. Since a new scientific test would cause only minor inconvenience, it is better to allow an independent examination so that the dispute can be settled finally and conclusively. A fresh DNA examination conducted by a reputed Central Forensic Laboratory under the supervision of the trial Court would enhance confidence in the process and eliminate any lingering doubts entertained by either side. If the earlier report is indeed correct, the fresh examination would only reaffirm the same. Conversely, if any discrepancy exists, the Court would be equipped with reliable scientific evidence to render a just decision. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to Respondent No.1 by directing such examination. Furthermore, Respondent No.1 did not choose to submit his objections in this matter.”
Case Title: Guduru Uma Maheswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a hotel employee accused in a Rs. 50.93 lakh misappropriation case, holding that in the absence of any specific allegation or prima facie material connecting him with the alleged offences making him face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the statements of material witnesses and the charge sheet did not attribute any specific role to the petitioner, who was working as a hotel boy. The Court held:
"Neither the statements of the material witnesses nor the charge sheet does reveal any specific overt-act as against the petitioner herein, nor any prima facie material is collected against him during the course of investigation, connecting him to the offences alleged.
All the allegations are directed as against A.1 to A.4. Except a vague and bald averment in the statement of L.W.4-K.Siva Sankar Reddy, there is no specific role attributed as against the petitioner. Basing on the said bald averment, the petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet.
On aperusal of the statements of the witnesses goes to show that the General Manager of the said hotel and others have collected money. But, nowhere, it is alleged that the petitioner collected the money from the customers. In the absence of any specific accusations as against the petitioner, it is nothing but abuse of process of law in making him to face the ordeal of trail."
Case Title: Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a registered gift deed, once accepted by the donee, cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor through a revocation deed executed before the Sub-Registrar, and that such revocation deeds are void unless the gift is first set aside by a competent civil court.
In doing so, the court held that there is no presumption that property is joint family property merely because the parties constitute a Hindu joint family, and the burden lies on the person asserting it to prove otherwise.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed a first appeal challenging the dismissal of a partition suit filed by a son claiming that the suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties and that revocation deeds executed by his father had validly cancelled earlier gift deeds.
Case Title: S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138
Holding that a contempt petition must ordinarily be filed within one year from the date of the alleged contempt, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a contempt case as barred by limitation, rejecting the petitioner's plea that the non-compliance of the earlier court order constituted a continuing wrong.
The Court observed that where a court order prescribes a specific time for compliance, limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 begins to run from the expiry of that period, and cannot be indefinitely extended merely by describing the breach as a continuing wrong.
Before a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta was a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an earlier High Court order directing the respondents to implement a Tribunal's order within three months.
Case Title: Kum. C. Rohini Roy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 139
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed cheating FIR against the Chief Executive Officer of a company accused of supplying inferior and substandard quality of oxygen plant during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the allegation at best amounts to deficiency in service and would not attract criminal offences.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy was a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of a charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) IPC.
Case Title: U. Kalpana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government servant awarded minor penalty of censure can be denied promotion for one year under G.O.Ms.No.53, as the Government Order has the force of law and validly supplements the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Emphasising the need for consequences to flow from disciplinary penalties, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed:
“if the contention of the learned senior counsel is to be accepted, “censure” imposed on an established misconduct of an employee literally has no consequence Such an approach would make the penalty of “censure” a dead provision in the rules. The discipline among the employees is instilled in fear of consequence of any act of misconduct and it would be unfair to treat an employee censured, on par with an employee with clean record for the purpose of promotion, it would be unfair. If a punishment has no consequence, it erodes deterrence and leads to the normalisation of wrongdoing.
The Respondents shall consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of HWO Grade-I after expiry of the one year period from the date imposition of penalty of censure as prescribed 19 in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 04.02.1997 taking into account her seniority and in accordance with the Rules.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 141
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Family Courts cannot examination-in-chief evidence in the form of affidavit in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS), as such procedure is contrary to mandatory requirement under S.126(2) CrPC which requires presence of person from whom maintenance is sought.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed:
"The first limb of the challenge relates to the manner in which evidence was received by the Trial Court. The answer to this issue must necessarily be gathered from the language employed in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C(Section 145 (2) of BNSS). The provision stipulates that "all evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader."
The legislature has consciously employed the expression "shall", thereby making the requirement mandatory in nature. The provision does not contemplate evidence being tendered by way of affidavits nor does it contain any enabling provision authorising the Court to substitute oral chief-examination with evidence affidavit.”
Case Title: Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 142
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an amendment application seeking to correct the plaintiff's name and the extent of a property in a partition suit cannot be refused merely because it is sought after commencement of trial, so long as it does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the opposite party.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:
"In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that, amending the name of the plaintiff in the cause title and amending the schedule in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (A Schedule property) as Ac.0.03 cents in place of 1100 Sq.yards or Sq.mtrs, does not change the nature of the suit and ultimately the suit will be for partition only. The court below, without observing the same, has erroneously dismissed the application, as such, the same has to be set aside. Therefore, this court is inclined to allow the revision."
Case Title: Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 143
The Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with pending tenancy proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that its supervisory jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked where an effective alternative remedy exists.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:
"The Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint, even though a specific provision for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was available to the parties to be taken recourse to.
In the grab of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to engulf the specific statutory remedy or provision in law and thus, become a supervisor over the court below or the tribunal, as the case may be. It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline and to insist that the aggrieved party should take recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law, especially where remedy available in the CPC for 11 the cases falling under category/other law also, where such specific statutory remedy is available.”
Case Title: Mekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu v. Tamada Ratna Kumari
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where attachment of a retired employee's retirement benefits is sought in execution proceedings, the executing court must first identify the particular head of retirement benefits sought to be attached, as benefits such as gratuity and provident fund are exempt from attachment under Section 60 CPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:
"A bare reading of the above provisions would indicate that stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer, or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government or the State Government cannot be attached in execution of a sale. The Apex Court has also held that pension and gratuity amounts, even it converted into fixed deposits, cannot be attached for the satisfaction of a court decree, reinforcing the need to identify them as such."
Case Title: M. Annapurna Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed cruelty FIR agaist a woman accused of being the second wife of a married man, after noting that she would not fall under the category of "relative" to invoke Section 498A IPC.
For context FIR was lodged under Section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman; Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was also invoke which criminalizes giving, taking and demanding dowry.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy held that the complainant and accused No.1 continued to reside together despite their marital disputes and that no divorce proceedings had been initiated. It observed that the complainant had produced no proof of the alleged second marriage and further remarked that, if such a marriage had in fact taken place, the petitioner herself could be an aggrieved person under Section 494 IPC, having allegedly been deceived into marrying a man with a living spouse.
Case Title: N. Anjinaiah @ Sakkara Anjineyulu (Died) by LRs v. N. Anumanna
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146
The Andhra Pradesh High Court condoned delay of 1024 days in filing an application to bring the legal heirs of a deceased appellant on record, reiterating that in a pending appeal a party is not expected to keep visiting the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position of the case.
Allowing the Civil Revision Petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:
"Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal".
Case Title: R. G. Maddilety v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the cancellation of a fair price shop dealer's authorization after he was elected as a Sarpanch, holding that under the State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, a person cannot simultaneously hold the post of Fair Price Shop dealer and a public office such as Sarpanch.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the cancellation of his authorization, which had been affirmed by the appellate authority.
The Court held:
"Two charges have been leveled, one with regard to variation in the stock and the other charge is that the inspecting team noticed that the dealer is acting as a Sarpanch, thereby contravening the Clause XII of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 and also the conditions of the authorization Control Order 2018. The stand taken by the petitioner that the authorities are very much aware that the petitioner is a dealer and allowed him to submit his nominations but that cannot be a ground to justify the action of the petitioner. Once he has elected as Sarpanch, either he has to resign the dealership or he has to resign the Sarpanch post."
Case Title: K.G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that authorities cannot issue a notice directing removal of constructions without first issuing a show cause notice and affording the affected person an opportunity of hearing.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:
"The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as 'audi alteram partem' rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle.
It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play."
Case Title: V. Seenaiah v. Nellore Sudhakar & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that formal service of a court order is not a prerequisite for holding a person guilty of civil contempt if it is established that the person had knowledge of the order and willfully disobeyed it.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:
"So, mere knowledge of the Order is sufficient. Serving the copy of the Order is not an essential requirement to hold guilty of contempt, when despite knowledge there is willful disobedience of the Court Order. Knowledge of the Order to the appellant is established in view of the discussion made above.We are satisfied on the second essential ingredient as well that there was willful and deliberate violation of the Court‟s Order. The appellant did not wait for two weeks to enable the petitioners to file the explanation and before expiry of that period demolished the construction or part thereof on 19.03.2018 itself."
Case Title: M. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 150
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the termination of a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer, holding that the dealer was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainants and was not furnished with the material relied upon.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the order terminating his dealership.
The Court held:
"It is a settled principle of law that when an adverse order is sought to be passed based on statements of third parties, the affected party must be afforded an opportunity to test the veracity of such statements by way of cross-examination. Denial of such an opportunity amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.
Further, this Court also finds that the impugned order does not reflect proper consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The order appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner, without recording independent findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and without demonstrating due application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem"
Case Title: T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS does not require an accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate as a condition for availing anticipatory bail.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed:
"Importantly, Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482 of the BNSS does not contemplate a requirement that the Petitioner must surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and only upon such surrender be released on bail.
An order of anticipatory bail must strictly conform to the procedure laid down under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.,‟ / Section 482 of the BNSS‟, and not otherwise."
Case Title: Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a POCSO Special Court cannot frame charges without first affording the accused an effective opportunity of hearing on the question of discharge as contemplated under Sections 250 and 251 BNSS.
The Court held:
"On a careful reading of the impugned order dated 08.05.2026, it can be gleaned that the impugned order is neither an order of dismissal of the discharge petition nor an order of discharging the Petitioners, but it is an order of framing charges without mentioning in the docket proceedings that before the charges are framed, the accused were heard about framing of the charges. However, the end of result of the impugned order is no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioners by way of hearing on the charges.
As a result, right of the accused is deprived of. Afortiori, the learned Trial Court has also not inquired from the Petitioners whether they intend to file a discharge petition as per their entitlement under Section 250 of 'the BNSS.,' though not within a period of sixty days in the view of the legislative mandate prescribed in Section 35 of 'the POSCO Act'."
Case Title: Mathi Venkata Lakshmi & Anr. v. Pushadapu Sambasiva Rao & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 153
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of its averments, it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint in a partition suit.
The Court held:
"It is a well-settled proposition of law that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power available to the Court at the threshold, and therefore, the Court, while considering the said application, shall go by the averments in the plaint alone. The claim of the plaintiff concerning knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action needs to be accepted as correct. The stand of the defendant in the written statement is wholly immaterial.
If the plaint ex facie does not disclose a cause of action, or a plain reading of the plaint reveals that the relief is barred by limitation, then only the plaint can be rejected. When the foundation of facts as pleaded attracts the bar of limitation, no trial is warranted. Even a clear drafting of the plaint, in certain circumstances, warrants rejection"
Case Title: Sornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (2026) 154
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while a Registrar is empowered to conduct an enquiry under Section 75(4) of the Registration Act by issuing notice to parties to produce documents establishing their title, such power does not extend to cancelling a registered sale deed.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Sujatha observed:
"Admittedly, in the present case, though Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 states that notice is issued only with regard to causing production of the documentary evidence to prove the title, but not to proceed to cancel the sale deed. However, a complaint has been lodged by the Assistant General Manager, SAR, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam to the extent of cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed executed by the Petitioner on 29.08.2016, which admittedly is not within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Respondent No.2 can conduct an enquiry under Section 75 (4) of the Registration Act by issuing notice to the Petitioner directing him to appear with all relevant documentary evidence to prove the title, but cannot further proceed to cancel the sale deed."
Case Title: P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (2026) 155
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a place of worship cannot be cannot constructed without prior permission by the district collector and other statutory land approvals establishing proof of title.
In doing so the court restrained further construction of a CSI Church at Maanchala Village, Mantralayam Mandal, holding that it did not comply with statutory requirements under AP Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules and AP Panchayat Raj Act.
Disposing of a writ petition challenging the construction of the place of worship, the Court held that statutory approvals cannot be bypassed merely because an earlier place of worship allegedly existed at the site.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao disposed of the writ petition with directions restraining further construction until the statutory requirements are fulfilled.
Case Title: Garikina Satyarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 156
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere declaration of a layout as unauthorized cannot be a ground to deny an electricity service connection to a person having valid title and possession over the property.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda observed:
"As per the General Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply, even an encroacher or rightful possessor is entitled for electricity service connection. But in the instant case, the petitioner is having valid title as well as possession of the subject plot wherein he got constructed a house. Mere declaration of the subject layout as unauthorized layout cannot invalidating the claim of the petitioner to have an electricity service connection in view of the General Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply."
Case Title: Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy & Ors. v. Challa Narasamma & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 157
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the opinion of an expert in relation to thumb impressions is more relevant than the opinion of an expert in relation to handwriting, since the science of identifying thumb impressions is an exact science that does not admit of any mistake or doubt.
In doing so, the Court set aside a trial court order refusing to refer a disputed agreement of sale for expert examination of thumb impressions in a suit for specific performance.
Allowing two Civil Revision Petitions, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that where the execution of a document is disputed, comparison of thumb impressions would assist the trial court in effectively adjudicating the dispute.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 158
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the filing of false criminal cases by a spouse, which ultimately end in acquittal, constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground for dissolution of marriage.
The Court upheld the decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband, observing that while merely filing a criminal complaint does not amount to cruelty, compelling a spouse to undergo criminal prosecution on false allegations culminating in acquittal does.
A Division Bench of Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice G. Ramakrishna Prasad observed:
"The instances cited by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole in the order impugned herein, in no uncertain terms establish that the Appellant acted in a cruel manner and harassed her husband by foisting false cases, which ended in acquittal.In this view of the matter, this Court confirms the findings of the 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole in Divorce Original Petition No.6 of 2004 dated 26.06.2007 to the effect that the actions and conduct of the Appellant-wife towards her husband-Respondent No.1 herein constitutes Mental Cruelty. This Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere in the present Appeal."
Case Title: Mogal Shuaibulla Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 159
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable at the instance of a person claiming to be in a relationship with a major woman living with her parents, unless there is prima facie material to show that she is under illegal detention.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the writ petition.
The Court observed:
"The petitioner and the alleged detenue might have lived or living in a relationship and might have their intentions to marry in future but merely based thereon, there cannot be a right to maintain the Habeas Corpus unlessthe material placed before the Court is such that the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an illegal detention.We are not oblivious of the law on locus standi to maintain a writ of Habeas Corpus but when it comes to seeking production or release of a girl living with the parents, and the writ petition is by a person claiming to be a boy friend, living in 'live in relationship' as alleged the very basic ingredient for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus deserves to be carefully and strictly scrutinized."
Case Title: Mantri Vasantha Kumari & Ors. v. Sri Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 160
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that trial courts deciding applications for temporary injunction must consider and mark the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and cannot grant injunctions without recording findings based on such material.
A Division Bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Balaji Medamalli observed:
"Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned judge has failed to consider the documentary evidence placed on record and has not recorded any specific finding referring to the relevant documents with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge also erred in not giving marking to the documents relied upon, though they were referred to. Apart from this, the learned Judge had entertained a single application seeking multiple reliefs, which is contrary to Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice."
Case Title: Kalla Gopi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 161
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere recovery of stolen property from an accused is not enough to convict them for murder, robbery, or lurking house trespass based only on circumstantial evidence.
Allowing four criminal appeals filed by the four convicted accused in part, the Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunaranjan set aside their convictions under Sections 302(murder), 460(House-trespass), 397(Robbery or dacoity), 352(assault or using criminal force without grave provocation) read with Section 34(common intention), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC.
Instead, it convicted them under Section 411 IPC. Since the appellants had already spent more than three years in prison, the Court directed that they be released immediately if they were not required in any other case.
Case Title: Narapuram Shravan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 162
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that capital punishment cannot be imposed unless the case falls within the "rarest of rare" category and the court is satisfied that the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the accused is unquestionably foreclosed.
Commuting the death sentence awarded to two convicts to rigorous imprisonment for life without remission, the Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception. It further acquitted a third accused after finding that no specific overt act had been attributed to her by the prosecution.
Case Title: Vyasyaraju Maheswara Rao v. Boyina Govinda Rajulu & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 163
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once a defendant has entered appearance through an advocate by filing a vakalat, the trial court cannot set the defendant ex parte merely because the written statement was not filed within the stipulated time.
Instead, the proper course is to forfeit the defendant's right to file the written statement and proceed with the suit in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Disposing of a civil revision petition, Justice Subba Reddy Satti declined to interfere with the trial court's order setting aside the ex parte order against the first defendant. However, the Court directed the defendant to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the revision petitioner for the delay.
Case Title: Naresh Rai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 164
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when the allegations against factory officials relate entirely to violation of safety measures governed by the Factories Act, 1948, they cannot simultaneously be prosecuted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for the same incident.
Allowing a criminal petition filed by the factory Supervisor (A1) and Occupier (A2), a Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy quashed the criminal proceedings pending against them for the offence under Section 304-A IPC which penalizes causing death by a rash or negligent act.
Case Title: Kathi Chinna Venkatasubbaiah v. G. Venkata Subba Reddy
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 165
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an incorrect survey number has been mentioned due to an accidental slip, the Court can exercise its power under Section 152 CPC to correct the mistake even after the decree is passed, provided there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property.
Refusing to interfere with the trial court's order, Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the correction of the survey number in a decree for specific performance under Section 152 CPC.
Explaining the legal position, the Court observed:
"The scope of Section 152 CPC vis-à-vis the correction of survey number etc., after the decree was considered nearly a century back, and it was held that the Court had jurisdiction. It was held that Section 152 CPC could apply even to correct the mistakes or errors committed in the plaint, and even in a document on the foot of which the suit was filed.
Thus, a conspectus of the authorities referred to supra, an accidental slip in the description of the property, the mis-description which was not even noticed by the parties throughout the whole course of the proceedings; no dispute regarding the identity of the property, the court can exercise its inherent power of making such corrections as are necessary for the ends of justice, even after the decree is passed in the interests of justice."
Case Title: All Saints Christian Education Society & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 166
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a law college which does not satisfy minimum infrastructural requirements prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and University Grants Commission (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009 cannot claim continuation of affiliation merely because it had been functioning for several years.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay upheld the disaffiliation of Veeravalli College of Law by Adikavi Nannaya University, finding that the college failed to meet the mandatory requirements relating to land, built-up area, classrooms, library and other academic infrastructure.
The Court observed:
"The shortfall of academic space and other infrastructural requirements in the Petitioner-College is an undisputed fact in the light of above. The shortfall is in a way admitted as per the Petitioners explanation dated 22.8.2024 wherein it was mentioned that the College is run on a shift system, i.e holding classes for 3 Yrs., LLB in the morning section and holding classes for 5 Yrs LLB & LLM in the afternoon session. This running of the College on a shift system is not recognised under the regulations referred to above.
In view of the shortfall in the infrastructural requirements as per the Regulations referred to above, this Court has no option but to uphold the impugned orders in principle."
Case Title: Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Gubbala Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors. (and connected matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 167
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recalled an order disposing of two writ petitions relating to a valuable piece of land in Kakinada and has directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to inquire into the allegations of the order being obtained by playing "fraud" on the court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N allowed the review petitions filed by Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association, recalling the common order that had disposed of two writ petitions concerning a dispute over land earmarked as open space in a residential layout.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. D. Venugopal & Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 168
Clarifying the scope of Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the High Court has held that a landless poor person who purchased assigned land in good faith and for valuable consideration before the Act came into force acquires full title to the land, including the right to further alienate it.
Emphasising the effect of Section 3(5), the majority held that once its statutory conditions are fulfilled, the land is taken outside the purview of the Act. Consequently, it ceases to be "assigned land" and no longer attracts the prohibition on transfer under Section 3.
A Full Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Justice T.C.D. Sekhar and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati answered a reference arising from a writ appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.