Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/2882/2023 of NELLURI SATYANARAYANA Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2882/2023 Between: 1. NELLURI SATYANARAYANA, SON OF RADHA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF ANNERAOPETA VILLAGE, REDDYGUDEM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
APHC010058222023
IN THE
MONDAY, T
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. NELLURI SATYANAR
ABOUT 51 YEARS
ANNERAOPETA VIL
DISTRICT.
2. NELLURI BHULAKSH
ABOUT
YEARS
ANNERAOPETA VIL
DISTRICT.X
1. THE STATE OF A
PRINCIPAL
SECRE
SECRETARIAT, VELA
2. THE MANDAL SUR
DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, RE
4. MADHAVA RAO NE
ABOUT
YEAR
ANNERAOPETA
VI
DISTRICT, AP 521 2
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 2882/2023
RAYANA, SON OF RADHA KRISHNA
S, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESID
LAGE, REDDYGUDEM MANDAL,
HMI,, WIFE OF N.SATYANARAYANA
S,
OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
RESID
LAGE, REDDYGUDEM MANDAL,
...PETIT
AND
NDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED
ETARY,
REVENUE
DEPARTMENT
AGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIS
RVEYOR, REDDYGUDEM MANDAL,
EDDYGUDEM MANDAL, KRISHNA DIS
LLURI, S/O LATE RAMABHUSHANA
RS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE,
R/O
LLAGE
REDDIGUDEM
MANDAL
215.CELL NO.97042 76256. R4 IS IM
RC,J
No.2882 of 2023
H
ATI
A, AGED
DENT OF
KRISHNA
A, AGED
DENT OF
KRISHNA
TIONER(S)
D BY ITS
T,
A.P.
STRICT.
KRISHNA
TRICT.
AM, AGED
H.NO.89,
KRISHNA
PLEADED
RC,J
AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.28.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2023.
...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 or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting the survey in respect of petitioners land admeasuring Ac.9.61
cents in the total extent of Ac.12.92 cents in Sy.No.149/2 of Anneraopeta Village, Reddygudem Mandal, Krishna District, and issuing the impugned order vide R.C.C.No.216/2022 dated 29.11.2022 holding that the petitioners are in possession of Ac.8.42 cents only instead of Ac.9.61 cents as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to re-conduct survey and demarcate the land of the petitioners to the extent of Ac.9.61 cents out of the total extent of Ac.12.92 cents by setting aside the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide R.C.C.No.216/2022 dated 29.11.2022. and pass 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 pleased to suspend the impugned order vide R.C.C.No.216/2022 dated 29.11.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to allow the present implead petition and permit the petitioner to be Implead as Respondent No.4 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.K RAJYA LAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
RC,J
1.GP FOR REVENUE
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
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned order vide R.C.C.No.216/2022 dated 29.11.2022 holding that the petitioners are in possession of Ac.8.42 only but not in Ac.9.61 cents of land.
2. Heard Smt. K.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. Smt. K.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for petitioners, appeared virtually and while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that pursuant to the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.31763 of 2022 filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to survey and demarcate the boundaries, the respondent no.3-Tahsildar issued notices to the petitioners as well as the neighbouring land owners, for which the neighbouring land owners filed objections stating that not to conduct survey in their lands and confine the survey to the land of the petitioners alone and thereupon the respondent no.3-Tahsildar issued the impugned endorsement stating that the petitioners have been in possession in an extent of Ac.8-42 cents only but not in Ac.9.61 cents. She would further contend that the respondent no.3 had conducted survey in a routine manner, without application of mind and hence the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside and a direction has to be RC,J
given to the respondents to conduct survey and demarcate the land of the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted that the petitioner without availing the remedies available under the statute straight away filed the writ petition and hence the writ petition is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.
5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The contents of the writ petition as well as the impugned order clearly shows that there are serious disputed questions of fact regarding possession of the petitioners. This Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot take up the task of resolving disputed facts, which require voluminous evidence, both oral and documentary.
7. Further, the petitioner without exhausting the statutory alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, filed this writ petition and therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant government Pleader, the writ petition is not maintainable since hit by rule of exhaustion of remedies.
RC,J
8. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail other remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 2ND November, 2026.
RR