WP/37053/2022 of M NARENDRA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 16 February 2026

1. M NARENDRA, S/O. OCE. AGRICULTU AGRAHARAM, MAN DISTRICT.

1. THE STATE OF A REVENUE DEPA VELAGAPUDI , GUN

2. THE DISTRICT RAYACHOTY.

3. THE REVENUE DIV DIVISION, ANNAMA

4. THE TAHSILDAR, DISTRICT.

5. P VENKATA RAMAN AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE, ANNAMAYYA DISTR

6. P RAVINDRA PRAS OCC. AGRICULTUR AGRAHARAM, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) E SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT E SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDA PETITION NO: 37053 OF 2022 M.NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 4 RE, R/O. NIMMAPALLI VILLAG NCHIGUNTA PALLI MANDAL, ANN ...PE AND AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SEC ARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BU NTUR DISTRICT. COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA D VISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLI R AYYA DISTRICT. NIMMANNAPALLI MANDAL, ANN NA, S/O. SUBBANNA AGED 80 YEA O. DOOR NO. 7-64-5A, MANCHIGU H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI RICT. SAD, S/O. NAGARAJU AGED 5 RE, R/O. MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLA NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANN

Y AVA 7 YEARS, GE, H/O. NAMAYYA TITIONER CRETARY, UILDINGS, DISTRICT, REVENUE NAMAYYA ARS, OCC. NTAPALLI MANDAL, 0 YEARS, AGE, H/O. NAMAYYA

DISTRICT.

7. P RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. P. SUBBANNA AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO.1-11, MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

8. RELLA VENKATRAMANA, S/O. REDDAPPA AGED 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO.1-2, MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

9. VADLAMUDI REDDEPPA, S/O. V. CHINNA AKKULAPPA AGED 52 YEARS, OCC.

R/O. DOOR NO.1-5, MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

10. KADIRI BHASKARA, S/O. LATE KADIRAPPA AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO.70, MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE,H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

11. RELLA GURRAPPA, S/O. R. VENKATRAMANA AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO.7-62A, MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

12. PIDATHALA REDDY BABU, S/O. P. KRISHNAPPA AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO.1-46, MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

13. V SOMA SEKHAR, S/O. V. GANGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC.

R/O. DOOR NO.7-65, MANCHIGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. AGRAHARAM, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT RR 5 TO 13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT.23.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2023

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE

M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri G.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Naidu Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is against the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land of an extent of Ac.0.26½ cents in Sy.No.33/4B, Ac.0.97 cents in Sy.No.33/5, and Ac.0.67 cents in Sy.No.33/6, at Agraharam Revenue Village, Nimmapalli Mandal, Annamayya District, and attempting to lay a road through these lands without following due process of law and without following the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. It is contended that the petitioner had purchased a piece of land in an extent of Ac 0.26 ½ cents in Sy.No.33/4B situated in Agraharam Revenue village, Nimmapalli Mandal, Annamayya District, from one Chinna Kadhirappa through a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2006, and subsequently purchased the other extents under separate registered sale deeds.

4. It is contended that on 14.11.2022, respondent Nos.2 to 4 entered the subject lands and tried to lay a road over/across the said lands, stating for public purposes, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that neither the 4th respondent nor the officials of his office attempted to lay any new road over the subject land. It is further stated that the road has existed for the past 60 to 70 years and that the petitioner has been obstructing passage through the road, thereby causing inconvenience to the villagers using the pathway. Accordingly, the villagers have removed only the obstructions/encroachments caused by the petitioner on the existing road.

6. Along with the counter-affidavit, the revenue authorities have annexed certain documents. A perusal of the same would reflect that pursuant to a complaint filed by the villagers against the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer caused an inspection of the subject land by the Mandal Surveyor. The Mandal Surveyor conducted a field inspection and Survey and found that the road is passing through the following survey numbers over the extents as detailed below: S.No. Sy.No. Total Extent Pathway Extent

32/A3 10.74 Ac 0.24 Ac

32A/5 2.30 Ac 0.05 Ac

0.67 Ac 0.07 Ac

0.34 Ac 0.03 Ac

Total: 0.39 Ac

7. The Respondent Nos.5 to 13 (villagers) were impleaded and contend that a road has been in existence over an extent of Ac.0.39 cents, and that the petitioner has been causing obstruction to the villagers' use of the passage/road to reach their respective agricultural fields. Thus, the villagers have removed the encroachments made by the petitioner over the existing road.

8. The Sri Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13 draws the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 53(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to contend that all public roads in any village, other than National Highways, State Highways and Roads vesting in Zilla Parishad or Mandal Parishad shall vest in the Gram Panchayat together with all pavements, stones etc., and contends that there has been in existence a road passing through the subject land and that the petitioner has been obstructing the same. It is further stated that the petitioner has also instituted a civil suit, in O.S.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the impleaded respondent Nos.5 to 13 and has obtained an order of interim injunction against them.

9. It is further contended by Sri Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13 that the petitioner does not have title to the entire extent of Ac.0.67 cents in Sy.No.33/6. As per the 1-B Adangal of the village, the petitioner holds only an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, and the remaining extent of Ac.0.07 cents was sold in favour of one Pedda Kadirappa. The road in Sy.No.33/6 is stated to be passing through the said Ac.0.07 cents, and therefore, the petitioner’s claim in respect of the same is not sustainable.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that as per the report of the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, there is a road passing through the subject land, which has been in existence for the past 60 to 70 years. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not justified in obstructing the villagers from using the said road.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim for mutation in respect of Ac.0.07 cents is pending for consideration before the revenue authorities.

12. Considered the rival submissions.

13. As per the report of the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, a road is passing through Sy.No.33/6 over an extent of Ac.0.07 cents, along with other extents in other survey numbers. Considering the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the revenue officials did not cause any obstruction over the subject land and that the alleged acts were by respondent Nos.5 to 13, and further in view of the fact that the suit filed against the said unofficial respondents is pending before the Civil Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the remedies available under law. The observations made herein above are only for the purpose of adjudication of the instant writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date: 17.02.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 37053 OF 2022

Date: 17.02.2026 BSK