APHC010153062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 315/2025 Between: Ghantasala Subba Rao ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.6724 of 2025, contending that certain private persons including the 7th respondent were obstructing the movement of fish, harvested from his tank, situated in Sy.No.330 of Satyavolu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District. The appellant contended that some private persons and the 7th respondent were obstructing the movement of vehicles, even though the said vehicles were 2 moving on a regular pathway on the road laid on the western side of the land of the 7th respondent. 2. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, by an Order dated 18.03.2025, had disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the official respondents to maintain a pathway without any obstruction and leaving it open to the appellant to approach the jurisdictional Court of law if any obstruction is offered by any other farmer. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 18.03.2025, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant would approach the appropriate court of law, to vindicate the right of the appellant to transport goods through the road mentioned above. However, the appellant is presently faced with an urgent situation where the fish, in the tanks of the appellant, a ripe for harvesting, and any further delay in harvesting them and transporting them would result in the death of the fish and a further loss for the appellant. 5. Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent, would contend that the road which is claimed as the access for transportation of fish by the appellant, is on private land, and the appellant does not have any right to move with the said road. He would also contend that the appellant himself has obstructed other farmers in the area for using the said road on a similar ground. 3 6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that the Tasildhar of the area, in compliance with the directions of the Court, has kept the said road free of obstruction. However, on account of the disputes among the villagers and the farmers in the area, the movement of the vehicles has been obstructed by the farmers and the 7th respondent herein. 7. It is clear that there is a private dispute between the parties as to the movement of vehicles on the said road. It is also clear that the said road is a private road and as such, the respondent authorities may not have any jurisdiction to intervene in inter se dispute between the private parties. 8. As observed by the Learned Single Judge, the appropriate course of action for the appellant is to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for enforcement of easementary rights, if any, available to the appellant. 9. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. BSM 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.315 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 29.04.2025 BSM