Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/8591/2019 of K RAMANJANEYULU Vs THE STATE OF AP on 11 August 2026
for orders :07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement :12.08.2026 Date of uploading :12.08.2026 APHC010198202019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION
Date of reserved for orders
:07.07.2026
Date of pronouncement
:12.08.2026
Date of uploading
:12.08.2026
APHC010198202019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 8591/2019
Between:
1. K RAMANJANEYULU, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O K.VENKATARAMUDU
R/O D.NO. 18-270, OPP.TRIVENI TALKIES NEERUGANTIVEEDHI, OLD TOWN ANANTAPURAMU
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
AP,
DEPARTMENT
OF
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT
COMPLEX, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
2. THE
ANANTAPURAMU
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
ANANTAPURAMU
TOWN,
ANANTAPURAMU
REP
BY
ITS
COMMISSIONER
3. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, ANANTAPURAMU MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION ANANTAPURAMU
4. THE
ASSISTANT
CITY
PLANNER,
THE
ANANTAPURAMU
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ANANTAPURAMU
5. K KRISHNAKARTHIK REDDY, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S TRIVENI
THEATRE COMPLEX, OLD TOWN, ANANTAPURAMU-515001
...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 toto pass an order or direction or any other proceedings one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the endorsement Re.No.4849/2018/G1
dated -02-2019 issued by the 4th respondent rejecting the petitioners plea for removing the encroachment in 30 feet road on the northern side of Plot No. 01
in L.P.No. 182/78 in T.S.No. 1934, Old Town, Anantapuramu, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and in violation of the provision of the Act besides violating petitioner's rights guaranteed under Act 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India
and
consequently
set-aside
the
endorsement
Rc.No.4849/2018/G1 dated -02-2019 and direct the 2nd respondent to immediately remove the encroachments in 30 feet road on the northern side of Plot No. 01 in L.P.No. 182/78 in T.S.No. 1934, Old Town, Anantapuramu
IA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to remove the encroachments in 30 feet road on the northern side of Plot No. 01 in L.P.No. 182/78 in T.S.No. 1934, Old Town, Anantapuramu IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioner enabling to file the counter affidavit in WP.No.8591 of 2019 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit to the WP.No.8591/2029 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In
2. KALAVA SURESH KUMAR REDDY ( SC FOR MC RAYAL REGION, NELLORE)
3. O M R LAW FIRM
4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
The Court made the following:
WP.No.8591 of 2019
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:
1. The petitioner is challenging the endorsement Rc. No.4849/2018/G1, dated -02-2019 issued by the respondent No.4, rejecting the petitioner’s plea for removing the encroachment in the 30 feet road on the northern side of plot No.1 in LP.No.182/78 in T.S.No.1934, Old Town, Anantapuram.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of plot No.1 admeasuring Ac.9.02 cents in L.P.Nos.56/74 and 182/78. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner has a 30 feet road on the northern boundary of the petitioner and that the sale deed executed in the year 1983 would also refer to the northern boundary as 30 feet road and 30 feet road on the eastern boundary.
3. The respondent No.5, who is running a theatre, had occupied the 30 feet road on the northern side of the petitioner’s property and converted it as a parking area in the year 1984. The respondent No.4, vide proceedings dated 28.05.1995, rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and held that the road in dispute is part of Ac.0.88 cents belonging to Triveni Theatre, and that the road handed over by Dr.N.Sudheer Reddy on 09.03.1978 is different and beyond the extent of Ac.0.88 cents.
4. It is submitted that the compromise arrived in O.S. No.46 of 1994 and O.S. No.340 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapur cannot permit the petitioner to engulf the public road. The impugned proceedings relate to the mutual settlement in the Court of law, vide orders dated 21.07.1989, in O.S. No.46 of 1984 and O.S. No.340 of 1995, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapur. The permission obtained by the petitioner was found to have been obtained unfairly. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the layout.
5. It is submitted that the official respondent is aiding the respondent No.5 in occupying a public road.
6. The respondent No.2 has filed a counter; it is stated in the counter that the disputed extent of the alleged encroachment by the respondent No.5 was dealt with in O.S. No.46 of 1994 and a compromise decree was obtained on 20.07.1999. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff No.4 in the suit and is a party to the compromise decree. The subject land was claimed to have been left out by the respondent No.5 for rasta for ingress and egress of the public who patronised the theatre and not for the general public.
7. It is submitted in the counter that a compromise decree resolves the issue and that the petitioner cannot raise a dispute over a settled issue belatedly.
8. The respondent No.5 has also filed a counter and Sri.O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has been troubling the respondent No.5 with unsubstantiated claim over the land belonging to the respondent No.5. It is submitted that the petitioner is a party to the compromise decree and the comprehensive proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 28.05.1995 would refer to the report of the Assistant Director of survey and land records dated 27.04.1995 and the disputed 30 feet road is part and parcel of the Ac.0.88 cents of land belonging to the respondent No.5.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5. Perused the material on record.
10. The compromise decree dated 20.07.1999 is arrived at by the parties to the suits, and the petitioner is also a plaintiff in the said proceedings. In the petitioner's plea seeking a direction from this Court to the respondents to remove the encroachments, the official respondents would have to determine the extent of the encroachments. In the absence of such determination, this Court cannot pass orders as sought for by the petitioner.
11. The petitioner would have to work out his remedy by taking appropriate steps in view of the compromise decree dated 20.07.1999. The blanket direction from this Court in a writ jurisdiction contrary to the compromise decree cannot be passed, and accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 12.08.2026 KGM
Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned ☑ Reportable
Non-reportable ☑
WRIT PETITION No.8591 of 2019 Date: 12.08.2026
KGM