Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6458/2026 of P RENUKA DEVI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 9 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6458/2026 Between: 1. P RENUKA DEVI, D/O LATE P. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
APHC010116892026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 6458/2026
Between:
1. P RENUKA DEVI, D/O LATE P. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-13-4-4, SUNDIPENTA, SRISAILAM POST, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. B. ADILAKSHMI,, W/O. LATE P. VENKATESWARLU, AGE51 YRS
OLD, OCC ANGANWADI TEACHER, R/O. D.NO. 3-13-4-4
SUNDIPENTA , SRISAILAM POST, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
WATER
RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI
GUNTUR
DISTRICT -522237.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -
522237.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DSITRICT-518101.
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, C B SUB DIVISION -I , NSRS
SRISAILAM PROJECT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.- 522237.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, C B SUB DIVISION -I , NSRS
SRISAILAM PROJECT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH-522237. 6.
6. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, C B SUB DIVISION -I , NSRS
SRISAILAM PROJECT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH -522237.
7. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B SUB DIVISION -1, NSRS
SRISAILAM PROJECT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.-522237.
8. THE TAHSILDHAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDHAR, SRISAILAM
MANDAL, SRISAILAM, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH -518165 9.
9. P ANJALI DEVI, ICDS, SUPERVISOR, SRISAILAM MANDAL
OFFICE
ICDS,
(ANGANWADI
OFFICE),
NEAR
MRO
OFFICE,ATMAKUR MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT ,ANDHRA
PRADESH- 518165
...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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in seeking to dispossess the Petitioners from Plot No. 3- 13-414 (formerly Quarter No. D-166), situated in Survey No. 9 of Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District, pursuant to Notice bearing No. R.C.C./158/2025 dated 09.12.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Notice bearing No. DEE/CB Sub Dr .1/NSRSSP/Notices/3 M
dated
12.01.2026
and
Notice
bearing
No.
DEE/CB
Sub
Dn.1/NSRSSP/Notices/5 M dated 31.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, without considering the detailed explanations subnnitted by the Petitioners pursuant to the said notices and without awaiting the Tahsildars veification report regarding the patta, as illegal, arbitrary, premature, without jursdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and
consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners except by following due process of law and after completion of lawful verification and adjudication by the competent authority and .or 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 to direct the Respondents not to dispossess or interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners over Plot No.
3-13-414 (formerly Quarter No. D-166), situated in Survey No. 9 of Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District, and / or pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. GANTA EDIGA RAKESH GOUD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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:
To declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from Plot No.3-13-414 (formerly quarter No.D-166) situated in Sy.No.9 of Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District, pursuant to notice bearing No.R.C.C./158/2025 dated 09.12.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, notice bearing No.DEE/C&B Sub D.1/NSRSSP/Notices/3 M dated 12.01.2026 and Notice bearing No.DEE/C&B Sub Dn.1/NSRSSP/Notices/5 M dated 31.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, without considering detailed explanations submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the said notice and without awaiting the Tahsildar’s verification report regarding the patta, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri G.E.Rakesh Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioners got assigned the subject land in favour of them for which the revenue authorities have issued D-form patta in favour of the 1st petitioner and recognizing their long standing possession. While so, the impugned notices were issued alleging that the petitioners’ pattas are fake, for which the petitioners submitted their explanations, however, without considering the same, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject properties. He further submitted that if the said action is allowed to continue, it affects the rights of the petitioners, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners cannot question notices before this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.
6. It is not in dispute that the impugned notices were issued asking the petitioners to submit their explanation for encroaching the subject property. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, ordinarily writ does not lie against mere issuance of show cause of notice. Entertaining writ petition against show cause notice dehorse the limit of Writ Jurisdiction. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana1, only very rare and exceptional cases, if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason, if it is wholly illegal, Court can exercise power of judicial review at the stage of show cause notice/charge memo.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition. However, the respondent authorities are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 10th March, 2026
RKS
1 (2006) 12 SCC 28