::1:: APHC010184862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9330/2025 Between: Chillakuru Venku Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE This 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 Writ of MANDAMUS challenging the action of the Respondents in trying to lay a canal across the lands of the Petitioners in an extent of Ac 3.79 cents in Sy.No 355 and in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.249 to 291/3-1 of Gudali Village Kota Mandal, Tirupati District without having any power or authority and without following any due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary highhanded against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to law apart from being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to lay any canal across the lands of the Petitioners in an extent of Ac.3.79 cents in Sy.No.355 and in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.249 to 291/31 of Gudali Village, Kota Mandal Tirupati District in the interest of justice and pass...” 2 1. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 3.79 cents in Sy. No. 355 and an extent of Ac. 0.40 cents in Sy. No. 249 to 291/3-1 and having acquired the same by way of registered sale deed, vide document Nos. 1125 of 2007 and 1302 of 2008. It is alleged that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are trying to lay a canal through the middle of the petitioners' land. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land is a private property and not a Government land. He further submits that, without issuing any prior notice, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are asserting rights over the said land and trying to construct a canal therein, which is contrary to law. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the respondent authorities will follow due process of law if they intend to lay any canal or undertake any construction on the petitioners’ property, as such an appropriate order will be passed in accordance with law. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government 3 Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material available on record, this court is of the considered view that, the present writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents, if they intend to lay any canal or undertake any construction on the petitioners’ property they shall follow due procedure as contemplated under the law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 09.04.2025 klk 4 158 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.9330 of 2025 09.04.2025 klk