APHC010113882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5908/2025 Between: Thanugondu Rangaswamy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in interfering with the possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents in RS.No.49-1, Ac.2.64 cents in RS No.492 in Modampalle Village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh under the guise of notice Dated 11.02.2025 wherein the 4th respondent decided to lay a rasta/road i.e., creation of easementary right for the 5th respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power violative of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to take steps in pursuance of the said notice and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of land Admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents in RS.No.49-1 and Ac.2.64 cents in RS.No.49-2 in Modampalle Village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District, having acquired the same through ancestral succession and the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property for several decades. While things stood thus, the 4th respondent is taking steps to lay a road through the petitioner’s land to facilitate ingress and egress for the 5th respondent by granting easementary rights. Such an action is arbitrary, contrary to law, and infringes upon the petitioner’s rights. He further submits that the petitioner issued a notice dated 11.02.2025, stating that the 4th respondent is trying to grant easementary rights in favor of the 5th respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that, as per the notice issued by the 4th respondent, there is a notified/recognized passage in Sy.No.49/1, known as Bandi Dari, which is also confirmed by the revenue records. 4. He further submits that the 4th respondent issued a notice intimating the purport of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.236/2005, passed by the civil court on 11.10.2011, pursuant to which the District Collector also directed the 4th respondent to facilitate the earmarking of the passage. There is no intention or objective, as contended by the petitioner, on the part of the 4th respondent to grant of any easementary rights. The action of the 4th respondent is solely to ascertain the existence of the pre-existing passage as per the revenue records. Therefore, apart from ascertaining the passage, the 4th respondent does not intend to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property. He further submits that the petitioner may provide an explanation regarding any objections and contentions raised before this Court. The same will be considered, and the 4th respondent will follow the due procedure as required, pursuant to the notice dated 11.02.2025. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, and on perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.49/1 and Sy.No.49/2, as mentioned above. It is a fact that there is a notified/recognized passage as per the revenue records in Sy.No.49/1. It is also noted that the unofficial respondent, along with others, filed a suit to ascertain their rights concerning the notified/recognized passage as per the revenue records, for which the court below passed a decree and judgment dated 11.10.2011. It is further observed that the 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner in view of the said judgment and decree dated 11.10.2011 and pursuant to the directions of the 2nd respondent, based on the representation submitted by the 5th respondent and others, for demarcating the said passage in Sy.No.49/1 from the land of the petitioner. The notice does not mention any interference with the petitioner’s land, except for the purpose of identifying and demarcating the notified passage as per the revenue records. 7. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to submit a detailed explanation or any objections if any within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. After considering the same, the 4th respondent shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to all other stakeholders if any, and pass an appropriate order by considering the entire material on record with reference to the revenue records. Further, the 4th respondent is directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property, except to the extent of the demarcation of the notified passage. 8. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 11.03.2025 klk 202 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.5908 of 2025 11.03.2025 kkllkk