Nominal Index

Chittiboyina Bharata Rao v. The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 167

Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 168

V. Maheswari and others v. S. Bhaskarachari: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 169

Raja Reddy and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 170

YUVAJANA SHRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY (YSRCP) v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 171

Krishnamsetty Praneetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 172

V Chenchaiah Naidu v. The State of AP and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 173

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 174

Nagireddi Satish Kumar and Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 175

The Director General, CISF & Ors v. Kudipudi Suri Babu: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 176

Thandava Yogesh v. State of AP: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 171

R Bala Bhaskara Rao, Versus Sri I. Venu Gopala Rao: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 178

Yelduti Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and batch: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 179

Final Orders/Judgments

State Can't Claim Financial Incapacity To Withhold Gratuity, Not Giving Benefits To Retired Employees Violates Article 21: AP High Court

Case Title: Chittiboyina Bharata Rao v. The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd and Ors

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 8465/2016

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 167

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that financial incapacity cannot be used as a defence by the State institutions for non-fulfilment of statutory obligation to provide terminal benefits to its employees, and shirking of the responsibility to release the same amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court was dealing with a case where terminal benefits were denied to retired employees of Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (DCCB) (Respondent 1)— an institution falling within the ambit of “State” under Article 12, on the grounds that Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS)-(Respondent 3)— to which the petitioners were initially deputed, expressed financial incapacity to release its contributory share.

Referring to a Memorandum of Intent of 2013 which prescribed the scheme pertaining to payment of terminal benefits to retired employees, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held,

“…respondents 1, 3 & 4, being the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India coupled with the fact that specific terms and conditions in Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013, the said respondents 1, 3 & 4, are bound to release the terminal benefits to the petitioner. A mere financial incapacity or paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfilment of such statutory obligations, more particularly, when the employees rendered their services, as such, they are entitled to terminal benefits under law.”

'State Has Moral Obligation': AP High Court Directs Reservation For Transgender Persons In Public Employment Within Six Months

Case Title: Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: W.P.No.26262 of 2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 168

In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed a dire need for the State to mainstream the transgender community— which lie at the “bottom of social backwardness", and to subsequently take affirmative action for their inclusion in all spheres of life, including public employment.

In this regard, Justice Nyapathy Vijay stated,

“As the origin of the problems of transgender persons in India lies in stigma and discrimination they face in family and society, resulting in their exclusion from the socio-economic-cultural-political spectrum, there is a dire need to mainstream them and the adoption of an inclusive approach in all spheres of life including affirmative action by the State in public employment. The purpose of carving out an exception to the right of equal opportunity in employment by the introduction of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India is only to ensure that socially and economically backward communities are also allowed to come into the forefront of society and ensure intergenerational equality. The transgender community is not only socially and economically backward, but has also been abandoned by society. In these circumstances, the State has a moral obligation under the Constitution to take affirmative action on behalf of such communities.”

Plaintiffs Cannot Reserve Rebuttal Evidence Under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC When Entire Burden Of Proof Is On Them: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: V. Maheswari and others v. S. Bhaskarachari

Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No: 2734 of 2022

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 169

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld a Trial Court order, which dismissed a petition filed under Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC seeking permission for the plaintiffs to reserve their right to adduce rebuttal evidence after the defendants concluded their evidence in a partition suit involving a registered partition deed of 2002, which also stood challenged by the plaintiffs in the original suit.

Justice B.S. Bhanumathi held,

“A perusal of the issues shows that the initial burden of establishing all these issues lies on the plaintiffs alone. It is not a case of a normal partition suit wherein, if the plaintiffs claim that the plaint schedule property is joint family property and the defendants take a plea that the property was already partitioned, the burden may lie on the party pleading earlier partition. Whereas, in the present case, the plaintiffs already admitted that there is a registered partition deed, dated 28.02.2022, and seek declaration of the same as null and void. Therefore, they cannot throw the burden of proving any of the issues on the defendants. Order XVIII Rule 3 applies where the burden lies on one party with regard to some issues and the other party with regard to other issues, which is not the case on hand.”

AP High Court Raps State For Devising 'Innovative Methods' To Take Over Private Property Without Due Process; Protects Citizen

Case Title: Raja Reddy and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 30830/2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 170

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has condemned the State authorities (respondents) for concocting “innovative ways” of acquiring the property of one Raja Reddy (petitioner), despite the Court earlier directing the authorities to not dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

On 06.10.2025, the petitioner was issued a notice which stated that he had encroached on the road margin, and the said encroachment was stated to be coming in the way of a proposed road widening project. On the same date, the authorities issued a notice again, whereby, it was stated that the building constructed over the property of the petitioner was in a “dangerous position” and that the structure was required to be demolished keeping in view the safety of the citizens. Upon challenge of the first notice of encroachment, the High Court, vide an order dated 17.10.2025, directed the respondent authorities to not dispossess the petitioner from the property without following the due process of law, and further clarified that the respondents would have to follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) in the event the property of the petitioner was required for road widening. The petitioner submitted that there was no constructed structure on the property except a compound wall, and argued that the authorities had devised a new method of taking over the property by stating that the building is precarious.

Justice Harinath N held,

“… it is evident that the respondent authorities are devising innovative methods for taking over the property of the petitioner without following the law of the land. This Court made it amply clear to the respondent authorities, while disposing of W.P. No. 29001 of 2025, that they must invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Unmindful of these directions, the issuance of the present notice calling upon the petitioner to remove a building which does not exist speaks volumes of the manner in which the respondent authorities are discharging their official duties.”

'Vindictive': AP High Court Raps State For Withholding Occupancy Certificate Of YSRCP Party Office

Case Title: YUVAJANA SHRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY(YSRCP) v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 20853 OF 2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 171

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has strongly criticised the State authorities (respondents) for denying occupancy certificate for a building constructed for use as party office by the petitioners, who were members of YSRCP, despite the building being fit for occupation.

Noting that State authorities are duty-bound to issue occupancy certificate for the building once it is fit for occupation, Justice Harinath N observed,

“The duty of the respondents is to process the grant of occupancy certificate for the petitioners building in a routine and standard manner. The inaction on part of the respondents in following the routine and standard approach clearly implies the external pressure and influence on them. There is no justification for the acts of the respondent authorities in denying the occupancy certificate without any justifiable cause.”

“… the vindicative acts of the respondents are evident from the way the occupancy certificate for a constructed building is denied all these days. The respondents also resorted to disrupting the access to the building”, the Court added.

De-recognition Of Association On Account Of Non-Renewal Not Ground To Disregard Achievement Of Participants: AP High Court

Case Title: WRIT PETITION NO: 31326 of 2025

Case Number: Krishnamsetty Praneetha V. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 172

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a plea of a MBBS candidate— who was placed lower in the priority list (at No.91) for admission to the course for the 2025-26 session, and had approached the Court asserting that she ought to have been placed higher on the list (at No.53) on account of her participation in the Senior National Fencing Championship, 2024-25.

The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent 3) had argued that the petitioner's participation in the Senior Nationals was not considered because the Fencing Association of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent 6)— which conducted the State-Level Championship and issued a backup certificate for the petitioner's participation, had failed to renew its recognition for the year 2024-25. Consequently, the backup certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the (then de-recognised) Association, reflecting her participation in the State-Level Championship, could not be considered to be in order.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that failure of renewal and resultant de-recognition of the Association should not be read against the petitioner for depriving her of her achievement of participation at the National Level. The Court thus directed the Sports Authority to consider the case of the petitioner under the sports-quota by considering the certificate produced by her for the Senior National Championship. The Division Bench further reasoned,

“… it can be seen that while it may be true that the Fencing Association of Andhra Pradesh had not sought renewal for the year 2024-25, yet, the achievement of the petitioner at the State Level cannot be disregarded, particularly in view of the fact that she was permitted to participate at the Senior Fencing National Championship 2024-25. The credit and the priority number which is allotted to a candidate in the instant case would be based upon her participation at the Senior Fencing National Championship and not at the State Championship Level, for which no credit is given.”

Land Assigned To Serving Soldiers Is Valid, Bureaucracy Cannot Defeat Gratitude: AP High Court Sets Aside Collector's Refusal To Permit Sale

Case Title: V CHENCHAIAH NAIDU v. THE STATE OF AP and Ors.

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 753/2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 173

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed an appeal of an ex-serviceman, who sought to sell land assigned to him under the ex-servicemen quota but was denied by the District Collector (DC) on the ground that the allotment was made while the appellant was serving in the Indian Army and was thus purportedly irregular.

Referring to a 2022 Circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, which permitted applications for assignment of land to be made by serving soldiers also, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Subhendu Samanta held,

“This Court had not been shown any provision of law nor has any material been placed before this Court, to support the contention that only Ex-Servicemen can be assigned land under the Ex-Servicemen quota and no serving member of the Armed forces can be assigned land. Further, the circular of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, referred to, by the learned counsel for the appellant, clearly provides for assignment of the land to the serving members of the armed forces. In such a situation, the lands assigned to serving members of the Armed Forces, cannot be resumed nor can such an assignment be treated as illegal or irregular.”

Explaining the relevance of assigning land to ex-servicemen, the Division Bench observed,

“The objective of assigning land to Ex-Servicemen is as a measure of demonstrating the gratitude of the nation to persons defending its borders and people. It is also, in a manner, an incentive for volunteers who serve, in the Armed Forces of India. Such an objective, cannot be whittled down, by bureaucratic procedure and officials raising a contention that serving members of the Armed Forces should not be assigned land.”

'People Love Their Land Like Their Mother', State Must Fulfill Promise Of Rehabilitation, Employment After Acquisition: AP High Court

Case Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RAJOLA JAGANNADHA REDDY AND ORS

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL No.356 of 2023

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 174

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that in our society, land is loved like mothers, and the acquisition of land by the Government for public purposes upon an executive promise of compassionate employment to displaced persons or their family members makes the Government duty-bound to fulfil the same within reasonable time and without raising technicalities on flimsy grounds.

A Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma explained that while compassionate appointment for land displaced persons cannot be claimed as a matter of right, a Government scheme specifically formulated for rehabilitation and employment of a member of the uprooted family to ensure social security binds the State to implement the same in true letter and spirit. The Division Bench further stated,

“The Governments itself framing the policies for providing jobs to the displaced persons whose lands were acquired for various public purposes, to ventilate the grievances and the hardships being faced by them with a laudable intention by making certain promises to those displaced persons. Then, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfil the promises made in such policies without raising any technicalities or on flimsy grounds. What the State authorities have to consider is (1) whether the applicant is really displaced person or dependant of the displaced family or not? (2) Whether the candidate is eligible and suitable as per the respective schemes? Besides this, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfil all promises made to the displaced persons within time frame to provide immediate rehabilitation to them to overcome from the hardships they have to face immediately after displacement from their lands.”

The Court added,

“In our society, no one can forget the attachment of people with their lands. Nobody, normally, will be ready to lose their lands, as they love it like their mother. But, when such lands are required for public purposes, though the owners of the lands are not agreeing to give their lands, Government is acquiring the lands as per Land Acquisition Act and the political executive is making several promises, like to provide employment to one member in the displaced persons family, as they are deprived of livelihood. If such promises are not fulfilled within reasonable time by raising technicalities and on flimsy grounds, the people loose trust on the State Executive. It makes them painful and then, it may leads to unrest. As such, State has to avoid such situations by implementing the rehabilitation schemes properly and promptly.”

Rowdy Sheet Not Sustainable Where Alleged Crimes Don't Disturb Public Peace & Tranquility: AP High Court

Case Title: NAGIREDDI SATISH KUMAR and ors. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and ors

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 1892/2022

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 175

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and the Police has to examine, with due care, whether the crime registered against an accused comes within the purview of disturbing peace and tranquility.

A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Vankata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,

“…rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and not in a casual manner. In opening a rowdy sheet it is essential that, due care has to be taken by the Respondent Police and, every year the committee has to review whether the rowdy sheet has to be continued or not. The other aspect that has to be seen by the Respondent Police is whether the crimes which are registered against the Accused would come within the purview of disturbing the public peace and tranquility at large.”

Contracting Second Marriage During Subsistence Of First Constitutes Grave Misconduct Justifying Compulsory Retirement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: The Director General, CISF & Ors. vs. Kudipudi Suri Babu

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 48/2025

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 176

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage constitutes grave misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, justifying penalties such as compulsory retirement for members of disciplined forces.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Annual Schedule For LLB Admissions To Curb Delays

Case Title: Thandava Yogesh v State of AP

Case Number: WP (PIL) 153 of 2024

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 171

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to streamline the admission for law courses from 2026, noting that delay in the process has an adverse effect on the academic curriculum of candidates.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan passed the order in a PIL filed by Thandava Yogesh.

“We are convinced that the Council cannot delay the process of completing the admission in various law colleges in the State which does have an adverse effect on the academic curriculum of candidates and therefore we feel that time limits have to be prescribed for initiating and completing the entire admission process so that by a fixed date the colleges can start their academic curriculum,” the Court said.

'Right Or Wrong, Court Order Must Be Obeyed': AP High Court Holds Transport Officials Guilty Of Contempt For Not Releasing Seized Vehicle

Case Number: CC 3926 of 2024

Case Title: R Bala Bhaskara Rao, Versus Sri I. Venu Gopala Rao

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 178

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that rightness or wrongness of an order cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings. The court further held that if the impugned order is contrary to law, then the contemnor is at liberty to challenge the order by way of a review or appeal.

“Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged, it cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible,” said Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda.

Raising Superannuation Age Is Policy Matter: AP High Court Rejects State Housing Corporation Employees' Plea Seeking Retirement At 62

Case Title: Yelduti Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and batch

Case Number: W.P.Nos.22056 and batch

Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 179

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by employees of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation (Respondent-Corporation) seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years in terms of a Government Order of 2022.

The petitioners sought continuation of service on the ground that a Committee was constituted in 2025 for examining— (i) the feasibility of enhancement of the superannuation age to 62 years for employees working in Government Institutions/Societies/Corporations included in IXth and Xth Schedules of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014, and, (ii) the Government's decision rejecting enhancement of age of superannuation.

Justice Nyapathy Vijay held,

“The constitution of a Committee under G.O.Rt.No.1545, dated 22.08.2025 to examine the feasibility of enhancement of age of superannuation, per se, cannot be a ground for seeking enhancement of superannuation at the age of 62 years pending consideration by the committee constituted. It is to be noted that the age of superannuation is a policy decision which has ramifications of recruitment as well as financial implications on the Respondent-Corporation and unless a concrete decision is taken by the State Government as contemplated under the Rules referred above, this Court, in anticipation of a decision of the Committee, cannot grant any relief to the Petitioners. It is to be noted that continuance of employees beyond the age of superannuation would be contrary to the service conditions existing as on date and would amount to alteration of service conditions, which is impermissible.”