WP/25161/2023 of Kasula Anjani Kumari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 April 2026

1. KASULA ANJANI YEARS, HINDU, VIDYADHARAPURA

1. STATE OF AND SECRETARY

T DEPARTMENT, PR SECRETARIAT, VE

2. THE SUPERINTEN JAGGAYAPETA C DISTRICT).

3. THE EXECUTIVE E ELURU DISTRICT.

4. THE DEPUTY EX DIVISION, MYLAVA Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a writ, o nature of WRIT OF MAN Kondapalli/9M dated 12 E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 25161/2023 KUMARI,, W/O SATYANARAYAN HOUSE WIFE,

R/O D.N AM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. AND DHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION RESENTLY WATER RESOURCES D ELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR NDING ENGINEER, NSLBC (OAN CIRCLE, NTR DISTRICT(FORMER ENGINEER, NSLBC (OANDM) DIVIS XECUTIVE ENGINEER, NSLBC (O ARAM, NTR DISTRICT. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High order declaring direction more particu NDAMUS declaring the notice vide L 2.04.2023 issued by the 4th respon DESH

L LAPATI NA, AGED 55 NO. 1-3-106, ...PETITIONER S PRINCIPAL N AND CAD DEPARTMENT, . NDM) CIRCLE, RLY KRISHNA ION, NUZVID, OANDM) SUB- SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be ularly one in the r.No.DEE/MYM/ ndent and their consequent action of the respondents in insisting him to vacate from the petitioner site property of 2009.32Sq.yards covered by Survey No - 43 and 44 of Kondapalli Revenue village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in N.T.R District without there being any authority or sanction of law, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with her possession of said property IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to suspend the operation of the notice in Lr.No.DEE/MYM/ Kondapalli/9M dated 12.04.2023 issued by the 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner site property of 2009.32 Sq. yards covered by S.No. 43 and 44 situated in Kondapalli Revenue Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in NTR District (Formerly Krishna District), pending disposal of the main Writ Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to receive the Reply copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

The Court made the following order:

Challenging the notice issued by respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.DEE/MYM/Kondapalli/9M dated 12.04.2023 and the consequent action insisting the petitioner to vacate the site property admeasuring 2009.32 sq yards covered by survey No.43 and 44 of Kondapalli Revenue village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, N.T.R District, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Department appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 08.04.2010. She further submitted that originally APIIC Limited had acquired land in an extent of Ac.430.72 cents under Land Acquisition Act, 1984 at Kondapalli Village. Out of the said acquired land, the Government had formed a layout and allotted Plot No.27(A) i.e., subject property to M/s Satya Hospital Equipments, rep by its Proprietor Sri Y.Vishnuvardhanarao under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.1999 for valid consideration and delivered possession thereof in its favour. Subsequently, the allottee executed a registered Sale Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 30.04.2007 vide document No.2801/2007 in favour of one Nagubandi Hanumantharao, from which the petitioner purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed. She further submitted that respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 12.04.2023 alleging that the petitioner had occupied the NSP land of 390.41 sq yards and directed the petitioner to vacate the said land alleged to have been encroached the canal. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 18.04.2023, however, no action has been taken in that regard. She further submitted that the canal was not in existence even at the time of the subject land in the year 1999 as per the sale deed executed by APIIC Limited. She further submitted that recently, the respondent authorities, without having authority of law, visited the subject land and insisted the petitioner to vacate the same. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Department on counter affidavit of the Executive Engineer, NSLBC O & M Division, Nuzvid, submitted that the petitioner has occupied 390.41 sq yards of NSP land on Kondapalli Sub Minor vide Sl.No.6 of the joint survey conducted by the Irrigation Department and Revenue authorities. He further submitted that the impugned notice was issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 under Chapter VIII of the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation Utilisation and Command Area Development Act, 1984 (Act No.15 of 1984). He further submitted that though the petitioner claimed to have submitted a reply to impugned notice on 18.04.2023, the same was not traced in the office record and upon enquiry, the then Deputy Executive Engineer stated that no such reply had been received. He further submitted that this Court in W.P(PIL) No.2

of 2017 directed the irrigation authorities to conduct proper survey if there are any encroachments or unauthorized occupation over the canal lands and take steps for removal thereof and it is submitted that the directions are also followed as per the procedure established by law. Hence, no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity to contest the findings of the survey, nor she was provided with any transparent evidence to substantiate the claim that her property encroaches on NSP land. She further contended that the petitioner’s property having been lawfully acquired and possessed, does not interfere with any canal or public infrastructure and that the survey’s findings appear to be based on a misinterpretation of the property boundaries. She further contended that the survey conducted by the authorities has not adequately demonstrated that the petitioner’s property constitutes an encroachment. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the dispute raised by the petitioner involves factual aspects, particularly with regard to the alleged encroachment and the correctness of the survey conducted by the respondent authorities. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to submit her explanation to the impugned notice.

8. In such circumstances, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed explanation/objections, along with all relevant documents in support of her claim to respondent No.4 in response to the impugned notice dated 12.04.2023, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such explanation, respondent No.4 shall consider the same, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner with regard to subject property.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17.04.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.25161 OF 2023 17.04.2026

MP