LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 27 - August 02, 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 154 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169Nominal IndexSornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 154P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 155Garikina Satyarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 156Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy & Ors. v. Challa...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 154 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169
Nominal Index
Sornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 154
P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 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., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 166
Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Gubbala Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 167
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. D. Venugopal & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 168
G. Jayarami Reddy v. A.V.N. Muralimohan & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169
Judgement/ Orders
Case Title: Sornapudi Chinna Rao v. Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition No: 338 OF 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 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.
Refusing to interfere with a notice issued by the District Registrar calling upon the petitioner to appear with relevant documentary evidence, the Court clarified that the enquiry could only be conducted in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and could not culminate in cancellation of the sale deed.
Case Title: P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13543 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 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.
Case Title: Garikina Satyarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 16579 of 2026
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.
Allowing a writ petition, the Court observed that under the General Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply, even an encroacher or a rightful possessor is entitled to an electricity connection, and a lawful owner stands on a better footing.
It accordingly directed the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (APEPDCL) authorities to consider the petitioner's application for a new domestic electricity connection within three weeks and grant the connection if he was otherwise eligible.
Case Title: Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy & Ors. v. Challa Narasamma & Ors.
Case: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3196 & 3197 of 2025
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, the Court 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
Case No.: C.M.A. No. 563 of 2008
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.
Case Title: Mogal Shuaibulla Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 16987 of 2026
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.
The Court observed that a daughter living with her mother and brother in the parental house ordinarily does not amount to illegal detention.
Dismissing a habeas corpus petition, the Court held that photographs and WhatsApp chats allegedly evidencing a relationship, without any material indicating that the woman was being detained against her wishes, were insufficient to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mantri Vasantha Kumari & Ors. v. Sri Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah & Ors.
Case No.: C.M.A. No. 280 of 2026
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.
It further held that multiple distinct interim reliefs cannot ordinarily be sought through a single application under Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice.
Case Title: Kalla Gopi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Nos.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3012 of 2018, 3086 of 2018, 252 of 2020 and 323 of 2020
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.
The Court said the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances that clearly connects the accused to the crime. If it fails to do so, recovery of stolen property can, at best, establish that the accused was in conscious possession of the stolen articles, making them liable only for the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section 411 IPC.
Case Title: Narapuram Shravan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Nos.: Referred Trial No. 1 of 2024; Criminal Appeal Nos. 604 & 608 of 2024Counsel for the
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 Court 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.
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 19 of 2023
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).
Case Title: Naresh Rai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 6113 of 2021
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), the court 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
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1585 of 2023
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.
Cautioning against misuse of the jurisdiction, the Court held that although boundaries prevail over survey numbers and extent in identifying immovable property, corrections after a decree must be permitted with due caution.
Case Title: All Saints Christian Education Society & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Nos.: W.P. No. 28192 of 2024 and the connected W.P. Nos. 7921, 13858 and 29442 of 2025, and 6762 and 7104 of 2026.
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.
The court 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.
However, to safeguard the interests of students already admitted under interim court orders, the Bench modified the disaffiliation orders to take effect prospectively from the academic year 2026-27, disposing of a batch of connected writ petitions.
Case Title: Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Gubbala Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors. (and connected matter)
Case Nos.: Review Petition No. 2 of 2026 in W.P. No. 11254 of 2013 and Review Petition No. 2 of 2026 in W.P. No. 13428 of 2015
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 the court 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.
The Association claimed that the land had been gifted to the municipality for public purposes, while the writ petitioners asserted title over it.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. D. Venugopal & Another
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 239 of 2017
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.
Case Title: G. Jayarami Reddy v. A.V.N. Muralimohan & Another
Case No.: M.A.C.M.A. No. 833 of 2012
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while assessing compensation for damage to a vehicle in a motor accident claim, depreciation should not be deducted during calcuation where new spare parts are necessarily used to restore the vehicle to a roadworthy condition.
The Court further held that the owner of the damaged vehicle is also entitled to compensation for incidental loss of income suffered during the period the vehicle remained under repair.