Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3029/2014 of Borra Venkaiah S/o. Subba Rao Vs The Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development on 5 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3029/2014 Between: 1. BORRA VENKAIAH S/O. SUBBA RAO, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KESARPALLI
APHC010268742014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 3029/2014
Between:
1. BORRA VENKAIAH S/O. SUBBA RAO, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.
KESARPALLI
VILLAGE,
GANNAVARAM
MANDAL,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE VIJAYAWADA GUNTUR TENALI MANGALAGIRI URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
AUTHORITY,
VIJAYAWADA,
KRISHNA
DISTRICT REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN
2. THE TAHSILDAR, GANNAVARAM, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NUZIVEEDU, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, EAST KRISHNA DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST.
6. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GANNAVARAM POLICE
STATION, VIJAYAWADA CITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT
8. THE
COMMISSIONER
OF
POLICE,
VIJAYAWADA
CITY,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
9. M VENKATA LAKSHMI PRASAD S/O RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY, R/O. 2-192/1, VENUS ROAD, SRINAGAR, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (a) to direct respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry for the fraud committed by the respondent No.9 and others in granting provisional layout vide Rc.No.C2-2128/2010 dated 11.3.2011 in favour of respondent No.9 and others even though the land of respondent No.9 is not having approach road and fraudulently the respondent No.8 by closing Yenu Kaluva and has shown the Government land in Sy.No.30 as approach road to their venture and cancel the said provisional layout in the interest of justice. (b) direct the respondent No.2 to 5 to restore the Yenu Kaluva situated in Kesarpalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District and take appropriate action against respondent No.9 and others who closed the water channel
(c) direct the respondents 6 & 7 to initiate criminal proceedings against respondent No.9 and others for closing the Yenu Kaluva situated in Kesarpalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District and converting the Government land as approach road to their venture without any permission from the authorities and causing inconvenience to the public in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 3719 OF 2014
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 respondents to take appropriate action against the respondent No.9 for closing the Yenu Kaluva in Kesarpalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice
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 grant leave to the petitioner to file counter affidavit in WP
No; 3029 of 2014 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V R AVULA
2. GP FOR HOME
3. J DILEEP KUMAR
4. CH B R P SEKHAR
5. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV
6. S PRANATHI
The Court made the following:
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:
The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry for the fraud committed by the 9th respondent and others in granting provisional layout vide Rc.No.C2- 2128/2010 dated 11.03.2011 even though the land of respondent No.9 is not having approach road and fraudulently the respondent No.8 by closing Yenu Kaluva situated in Kesarpalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, by showing the Government land in Sy.No.30 as approach road to their venture and cancel the said provisional layout and to restore the same and further direct the respondents 6 & 7 to initiate criminal proceedings against 9th respondent and others for closing the Yenu Kaluva without any permission from the authorities and causing inconvenience to the public.
2. Learned counsel for the 9th respondent submitted that the petitioner has no land at all in the subject land and in fact he has given his land to his son wherein his son filed a suit against the 9th respondent and the same was withdrawn. He further submitted that the petitioner filed the present writ petition with all false pleadings, as such, the writ petition being meritless, deserves dismissal, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
3. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in touch with them and despite their best efforts they could not contact the petitioner, as such, they have no instructions in the matter.
4. When the writ petitions are pending before the Courts, the parties should invariably be in touch with their advocates. In the present case, the petitioner is not in touch with his advocate for a long time, this shows that the petitioner is not interested in the prosecuting the case.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. However, if the petitioner still feels that the cause survives, he shall file appropriate application within a period of two months. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 06th March, 2026
RKS