Nominal Index

Savari Eswaramma v. Parigala Anjinamma & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 190

Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 191

Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 192

Chintapalli Satyavati v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 193

Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 194

Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195

P. Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196

In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 197

Rayala Kiran Kumar vs Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 198

Judgement/ Orders

AP High Court Sets Aside Gift Deed Restoration Order As Subsequent Transferees Were Not Heard

Case Title: Savari Eswaramma v. Parigala Anjinamma & Others

Case No.: W.A. No. 734 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 190

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge order that had restored a registered gift deed, ruling that writ proceedings cannot adversely affect the rights of third-party purchasers without impleading them and giving them an opportunity of hearing.

The High Court observed that restoring the original gift deed would enable the daughter to assert title against the subsequent purchasers. The Bench noted that, prima facie, such an order could have the effect of automatically deciding the pending civil suit against those purchasers. 

Pendency Of Civil Suit Does Not Bar Mutation Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Others

Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 536 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 191

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the mere pendency of a civil suit relating to title does not bar revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers to conduct mutation proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

In doing so, the Court clarified that while the Civil Court's declaration of title would ultimately govern the revenue entries, a pending title suit by itself does not prevent revenue authorities from exercising jurisdiction under the 1971 Act.

Accused's Right To Silence Can't Be Stretched To Avoid Investigation, But Police Cannot Resort To Endless Summoning: AP High Court

Case Title: Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 17890 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 192

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused's right to remain silent during interrogation is a substantive constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, but it does not absolve the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in an investigation when lawfully called upon to do so.

On the repeated notices, the Court held that their mere issuance does not automatically make them mala fide or arbitrary, since determining what further material, clarification or confrontation is required falls within investigative discretion. However, that discretion cannot become a licence for endless summoning.

Instead of quashing the proceedings or completely restraining further investigation, the Court adopted a middle course. It directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and the Investigating Officer to complete it within a reasonable timeframe.

Andhra Pradesh Goondas Act | 12-Day Period For Govt Approval Begins After Detention Order Is Passed: High Court

Case Title: Chintapalli Satyavati v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 29553 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 193

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the 12-day period for approval of a preventive detention order under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers, 1986, begins from the day after the detention order is made, thereby excluding the date of the order from computation.

Addressing the computation of the statutory period, the High Court held that the words “after the making thereof” in Section 3(3) require the date of the detention order to be excluded. Thus, the 12-day period commenced from the following day, making the Government's approval validly within time.

District Collector Can't Challenge Govt Order, Bound By State's Hierarchical Decision: AP High Court

Case title: Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition Nos. 5306 and 11889 OF 2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 194

Dismissing pleas by Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) and the District Collector challenging a GO granting ryotwari patta rights, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the District Collector designated by government to perform statutory duties, cannot file a writ petition against the Government's own revisional order.

The Court said that “delegate” means little more than an agent, adding that an agent does not exercise personal powers, but rather acts on behalf of the principal.

Witness Attesting Allegedly Fraudulent Document Not Criminally Liable Without Specific Allegations: AP High Court

Case Title: Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 9878 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere attestation of an allegedly fraudulent document, without any specific allegation attributing an active role to the attesting witnesses in the alleged offence, cannot by itself make them criminally liable.

The Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against two accused who had been implicated solely on the ground that they had attested a disputed Gift Deed.

Finding the allegations against the petitioners to be bald and omnibus, the High Court held that, even if taken at face value, they did not disclose any offence or make out a prima facie case against them. 

Appeal Against Reference Court Decree Under Land Acquisition Act Does Not Lie Under Section 96 CPC: AP High Court

Case Title: P. Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector & Anr.

Case No.: L.A.A.S. No. 10 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal against a decree passed by the Reference Court in proceedings under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable only under Section 54 of the Act and not under Section 96 CPC. 

The Court held that “proceedings” in Section 54 include adjudication on references under Sections 18 and 30, with Section 54 providing the right of appeal and the CPC governing only its procedure. 

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the maintainability objection, holding that appeals against Reference Court decrees under Sections 18 or 30 lie under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and not Section 96 CPC.

AP High Court Fines Mother ₹50,000 For Suppressing Grant Of Custody To Father Pursuant To Mutual Settlement

Case Title: In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 18034 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 197

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of minor children is not maintainable where the children are in the custody of their father pursuant to a mutually agreed settlement between the parents.

The Court dismissed with costs the mother's petition seeking production and restoration of custody of her two minor children. The Court found that the parents had agreed under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the children would remain in the father's custody.

Holding that the petition was not maintainable and involved suppression of material facts, the Bench dismissed it and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the mother. 

Govt Can't Alter Merit List Recommended By Selection Committee, Appoint Consumer Commission President Of Its Choice: AP High Court

Case: Rayala Kiran Kumar vs Union of India & others, 

W.P.NO. 30995 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 198

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an order appointing President of Vijayawada's District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that the State Government cannot independently alter the order of merit or appoint a candidate of its choice by overlooking the recommendations of the Selection Committee. 

The Court held that under Rule 6(11) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, the State Government's role is confined to verifying the credentials and antecedents of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, and does not extend to altering the order of merit.