Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/17844/2023 of PATHIVADA APPALA NAIDU Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 19 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17844/2023 Between: 1. PATHIVADA APPALA NAIDU, S/O LATE SRI SURI NAIDU, HINDU, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. RAJA VEEDHI, RELLI
APHC010347982023
IN THE H
(
WEDNESDA
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. PATHIVADA APPALA
AGE. 66 YEARS, OC
VALASA - 535 204,
DISTRICT
2. MAHANTHI SRINIVA
HINDU, AGE. 52 YEA
RELLI
VALASA
-
VIZIANAGARAM DIST
1. STATE OF ANDHRA
REVENUE DEPT., A
GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE
DISTRICT
CO
VIZIANAGARAM - 535
3. THE TAHSILDAR, P
DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISTANT EX
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 17844/2023
A NAIDU, S/O LATE SRI SURI NAIDU
CC. CULTIVATION, R/O. RAJA VEED
POOSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIAN
ASA RAO, S/O LATE SRI SATYANA
ARS, OCC. CULTIVATION. R/O. RAJA
204,
POOSAPATIREGA
TRICT
...PETIT
AND
A PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SEC
A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI -
OLLECTOR,
VIZIANAGARAM
DIST
5 001
POOSAPATIREGA - 535 204 VIZIAN
XECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION
RC,J
No.17844 of 2023
ATI
U, HINDU,
DHI, RELLI
NAGARAM
ARAYANA,
A VEEDHI,
MANDAL,
TIONER(S)
CRETARY,
522 503,
RICT
AT
NAGARAM
SECTION,
RC,J
APEPDCL, POOSAPATIREGA - 535 204 VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Endorsement of the 3rd Respondent bearing Rc.No. 111/2023/CS/Date 13.04.2023,whereby and where under the Certificate in Form 3 under WALTA
Rules, 2004 for digging of bore well in the land of the 1st petitioner in Sy.Nos.
56-3, 65-3, 65-5, 65-6 and 67-7 and the land of the 2nd petitioner in Sy.Nos.
64-5 and 65-4 of Bharanikam Revenue Village, Govindapuram Panchayat, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District was not issued as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to issue Certificate in Form -3 under WALTA Rules, 2004 for digging of bore wells in the land of the lst petitioner in Sy.Nos. 56-3, 65-3, 65-5, 65-6 and 67-7
and the land of the 2nd petitioner in Sy.Nos. 64-5 and 65-4 of Bharanikam Revenue Village, Govindapuram Panchayat, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District forthwith and pass such
may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to issue Certificate in Form — 3 under WALTA Rules, 2004 for digging of bore wells in the land of the 1st petitioner in Sy.Nos. 56-3, 65-3, 65-5, 65-6 and 67-7 and the land of the 2nd petitioner in Sy.Nos. 64-5 and 65-4 of Bharanikam Revenue Village, Govindapuram Panchayat. Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and pass such may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondents in the W.P.No: 17844 of 2023 to file Counter Affidavit in the above writ petition and to pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2026
RC,J
May be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner here/Respondent No.3 in the W.P.No.17844 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.N SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR REVENUE
2.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement of respondent no.3 bearing Rc.No.111/2023/CS, dated 13.04.2023 declining to grant permission for digging bore-well in the subject property i.e. in S.Nos.56-3, 65- 3, 65-5, 65-6 and 67-7 of petitioner no.1 and in Sy.Nos.64-5 and 65-4 of Bharanikam Revenue Village, Govindapuram Panchayat, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Heard Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel, representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL.
RC,J
3. Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the subject property is the private patta land of the petitioners and since the authorities in utter ignorance of the said fact issued notices under Form-I and Form-II of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9/1977), the petitioners filed writ petition vide W.P.No.38685 of 2017 and this Court granted interim direction therein and the said writ petition is pending adjudication. The learned senior counsel would further submit that for the purpose of carrying out agricultural operations in the subject land, the petitioners made an application seeking permission for digging a bore-well in the subject land under Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, but the authorities declined to grant permission on the flimsy ground of pendency of writ petition in regard to the subject property. The learned senior counsel would contend that the ground on which permission was rejected is not tenable and no prejudice whatsoever would cause to the Government if bore- well is dug in the subject premises and in case the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed the government can have the benefit of existence of bore-well in the subject land and in case the bore-well is not dug, agricultural operations cannot be carried out in the subject land and the livelihood of the petitioners would get adversely affected. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ RC,J
petition directing the authorities to grant permission for digging a borewell in the subject land.
4. On the other hand, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, contended that in case the permission is granted and the petitioners are permitted to dig a bore-well in the subject land, they may claim rights and equities in future and since the writ petition filed questioning the notices issued under POT Act is pending, the authorities had rightly rejected the request of the petitioners. The writ petition being meritless and the same deserves dismissal. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that in case this Court inclines to direct the authorities to grant permission to dig bore-well, it may be observed that the said permission was given subject to result of the writ petition and the petitioners would not claim any equities in future.
5. In reply, learned senior counsel submitted that the permission granted could be subject to the result of the writ petition and the petitioners would not claim any equities in future.
6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, since the petitioners want to dig a bore-well in the subject property at his own risk and peril and undertook not to claim equities in the event they RC,J
emerged out unsuccessful in the writ petition filed by them, this writ petition can be disposed of.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to grant permission to the petitioners to dig a bore-well in the subject land. However, the same is subject to outcome of the writ petition vide W.P.No.38685 of 2017 and the petitioners shall not claim any equities in future. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 19TH August, 2026.
RR