Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6593/2026 of AMARESAM GOVINDU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 14 June 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6593/2026 Between: 1. AMARESAM GOVINDU, S/O. SUBBA RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/O. IPURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
APHC010125592026
IN TH
MONDA
TWO
THE HONOURA
W
Between:
1. AMARESAM GOVI
YEARS, R/O. IPUR
1. THE STATE OF
PRINCIPAL SECRE
SECRETARIAT BU
DISTRICT.
2. THE
DISTRICT
NARASARAOPET.
3. THE
EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT,
PALNADU DISTIRC
4. THE DEPUTY EX
DEPARTMENT, VI
5. THE
ASSISTANT
DEPARTMENT, K
DISTRICT.
6. THE TAHSILDAR, I
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL
RIT PETITION NO: 6593/2026
NDU, S/O. SUBBA RAYUDU, AGE
RU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PALNAD
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENT
ETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS D
ILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVA
T
COLLECTOR,
PALNADU
E
ENGINEER,
ROADS
AND
NARASARAOPET DIVISION, NAR
CT.
ECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AN
NUKONDA.
T
ENGINEER,
ROADS
AND
KAREMPUDI DIVISION, KAREMPUD
PURU MANDAL, IPURU, PALNADU
RC,J
DESH
LAPATI
ED ABOUT 83
DU DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
TED BY ITS
DEPARTMENT,
ATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT,
BUILDINGS
RASARAOPET,
D BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS
DI. PALNADU
DISTRICT.
RC,J
7. THE IPURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP., BY ITS SECRETARY, IPURU, IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the respondents 3 to 7 in resorting to demolish the petitioner building bearing Door No.6A6-36, Assessment No. 1036, situated in D.No.115-2 admeasuring 282.07 Sq. Yards of Ipuru Village and Mandal of Palnadu District., on the pretext of road widening without issuing any notice, opportunity and without acquiring the same by initiating appropriate acquisition proceedings under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and without following the due procedure established by law., as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to take up the aforesaid road widening work if any in accordance with the procedure established by 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 grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner from his building bearing Door N0.6A6- 36, Assessment No.1036, situated in D.No.115-2
admeasuring 282.07 Sq. Yards of Ipuru Village & Mandal of Palnadu District by demolition or otherwise., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G VENKATA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2.GP FOR REVENUE
RC,J
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 action of respondent nos. 3 to 7 in resorting to demolish the petitioner’s building bearing Door No.6A6-36, Assessment No.1036, situated in D.No.115-2 , admeasuring 282.07 sq. yards of Ipuru Village & Mandal of Palnadu District, without issuing notice, opportunity and without acquiring the land.
2. Heard Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities are trying to demolish the house of the petitioner constructed in his private patta land under the guise of widening of road without issuing any notice and without acquiring the land and if the authorities are permitted to succeed in their acts the petitioner’s house would be demolished and he along with his family would be rendered shelterless. Accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition directing the authorities not to interfere with the subject house property of the petitioner.
3. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on counter, submitted that the survey conducted by the authorities disclosed that there are several encroachments on the public road RC,J
and the authorities are taking steps to remove the encroachments by following the due process contemplated under law.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are trying to demolish his house property situated in his private patta land without issuing any notice and without acquiring the land. Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the authorities would take steps for removing encroachments found on the public road only but no structures in the private patta land would be meddled with and further the authorities would remove the encroachments by following the procedure contemplated under law.
5. In view of the same, since the authorities undertook to follow due process of law before removing encroachments found on public road only but not the structures found in the private patta land, this writ petition can be disposed of.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the concerned authorities not to interfere with the subject house property of the petitioner, except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 15th June, 2026.
RR
RC,J