Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/19445/2026 of Gorle Seenu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19445/2026 Between: 1. GORLE SEENU, S/O., GORLE DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O., D.NO. 2-3,
APHC010364762026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 19445/2026
Between:
1. GORLE SEENU, S/O., GORLE DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O., D.NO.
2-3,
BALANKI
VILLAGE,
VEPADA
MANDAL,
VIJAYANAGARAM DISTRICT- 535281.
2. JAMMULA PRIYA, W/O., J. SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O., D.NO. 13-16-30/1, B.C ROAD, SANJEEVIGIRI
COLONY, GAJUWAKA, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530011.
3. BUSA APPALANAIDU, S/O., BUSA APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, R/O., D.NO. 59-25-4 YADHAVA ROAD, MULAGADA
MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530011.
4. KOPPALA ACHHIYEMMA, W/O., K. SATHYA NARAYANA AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O., KONDAPADU VILLAGE, BUCHEIPETTA
MANDAL, ANNAKAPALLI DISTRICT.
5. GAVIREDDY SIVA LAKSHMI, W/O., G. GOVIND, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS
R/O.,
KOTHAPALEM,
ROLUGUNTA
MANDAL,
VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530011.
6. KAREDIA VARAHALA RAO, S/O., LATE RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O., MUTHYALAPALLEM KOTHURU, VISHAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT- 530011.
7. GALLA MUTYALU NAIDU, S/O., RAMU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O., VEPADA MANDAL VIJAYANAGARAM DISTRICT- 535281.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND
URBAN DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI
VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PIN 522237
2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
GVMC, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. PIN
530001.
3. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
WEST
ZONE,
GVMC,
VISAKHAPATNAM. PIN 530001.
4. THE TOWN SURVEYOR, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, WEST ZONE, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM. PIN
530001
5. THE
TAHSILDAR,
MULAGADA
MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT. PIN 530011
...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 topleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularity one in the nature Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land measuring an extent of 280 square yards belonging to petitioner no.1, land measuring an extent of 320 Square yards belonging to 2nd petitioner, land measuring an extent of 130 Square yards belonging to 3rd petitioner, land measuring an extent of 50 Square yards belonging to 4th petitioner, land measuring an extent of 60.44 Square yards belonging to 5th petitioner, land measuring an extent of 200 Square yards in Sy.No.21/5 belonging to 6th petitioner and land measuring an extent of 100 Square yards in Sy.No.21/5 belonging to 7th petitioner situated in Sy.No.25/1 of Mulagada Village, Erstwhile VishakhapatnamTaluka, now Mulagada Mandal, Vishakhapatnam District, without issuing any notice or calling for any explanation from the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, colourable excise of power, unjust, violation of principals of Natural Justice and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners subject property without following due process of law 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 pleased to direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioners from the plots measuring an extent of 280 Square yards belonging to 1st petitioner, land measuring an extent of 320 Square yards belonging to 2nd petitioner, land measuring an extent of 130 Square yards belonging to 3rd petitioner, land measuring an extent of 50 Square yards belonging to 4th petitioner, land hieasuring an extent of 60.44 Square yards belonging to 5th petitioner, land measuring an extent of 200 Square yards belonging to petitioner and land measuring an extent of 100 Square yards belonging to 7th petitioner situated in Sy.No.21/5
of
Mulagada
Village,
Erstwhile
Vishakhapatam Taluka, now Mulagada Mandal, Vishakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE-15548/AP/15548/2017
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
WRIT PETITION NO: 19445 of 2026
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:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owners of small extents of land, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds from the original ryotwari patta holder. It is submitted that the Settlement Officer, by proceedings dated 28.12.1976, had granted a ryotwari patta in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents in Survey No. 21/5. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent, by letter dated 23.08.2025 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Gajuwaka, requested that no registrations be entertained in respect of the subject land in Survey No. 21/5, on the premise that the same was classified as Government land in the revenue records. It is submitted that the petitioners thereafter submitted their explanation and brought to the notice of respondent No.5 that the patta is issued in favour of their vendor. Consequently, respondent No.5, by communication dated 29.01.2026, informed the Sub-Registrar, Gajuwaka, to treat the earlier communication dated 23.08.2025 as withdrawn and further clarified that Survey No. 21/5 is not covered under the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and that registrations may be permitted. It is submitted that, despite the said clarification, respondents 2 to 4 are now interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, on the basis of written instructions received from the authorities, submits that the respondents came to know about the construction of a compound wall in Survey No. 21/5 on the basis of a newspaper article dated 03.07.2026. It is submitted that, on the basis of the said newspaper report and a complaint received from a journalist regarding the land in Survey No. 21/5, the petitioners were called upon to produce their title documents for verification. It is further submitted that, in the event the petitioners intend to undertake any construction over the subject property, they would be required to approach the competent authority by submitting the requisite documents.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that respondents 2 to 4 could not have interfered with the petitioners' possession solely on the basis of a newspaper report dated 03.07.2026. In view of the communication dated 29.01.2026 issued by respondent No.5, clarifying that Survey No. 21/5 is not covered under the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and that registrations in respect of the said land may be permitted, respondents 2 to 4 shall not interfere with the petitioners' possession except by following due process of law. However, if the respondents propose to initiate any proceedings or require any information from the petitioners in relation to the subject property, they shall issue an appropriate notice to the petitioners and proceed in accordance with law.
5. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:16.07.2026 RSD
Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned ☑ Reportable
Non-reportable ☑
WRIT PETITION NO: 19445 of 2026 Date: 16.07.2026
RSD