APHC010221282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 11293/2024 BETWEEN: 1. VAKA SIVA KOTI REDDY, S/o. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, R/o. REDIA BAZAR, VETAPALEM, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIET BUILDING, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATIA DISTRICT, BAPATIA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VETAPALEM MANDAL, VETAPALEM, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondents on the representation made by the petitioner in Spandana Program vide No.BPT202402263668 dt-26- 02- 2024 is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondents to take action on the representation made by the petitioner by forthwith and to pass such other order or orders. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 26.02.2024 filed in Spandana Program vide No.BPT202402263668. 2. The grievance of the petitioner through the Writ Petition is that the management of the M.P.P. School (is not the party to the present Writ Petition), is taking steps to close the pathway by erecting compound wall. If the compound wall is constructed, the entire way reaching to the petitioner’s agricultural land would be closed. Hence, the petitioner requested the school management number of times not to close the pathway, but they did not consider the request. Hence, the petitioner constrained to make a complaint to the District Collector in Spandana Programme. 3. The 3rd Respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit and asserted that the management of the M.P.P. School was proposed to arrange fencing to their school compound. When the Headmaster of the School was enquired she had stated that some people are resorting to antisocial activities in the school premises after closure of the school every day. Hence, it is proposed to erect a fencing and gate with bamboos to the school premises and it is also stated that the petitioners 4 are having any objections, they will drop this proposal. It is further asserted that the petitioner’s brother one Sri Vaka Ramulu has attended for enquiry and stated that his brother i.e. Petitioner herein went to Uganda Country. 4. The dispute is purely civil in nature between the Petitioner and M.P.P. School, who is not a party before this Court and the relief is easementary right which has to be adjudicated before the appropriate Civil Court. This Court is not inclined to pass any orders in the absence of the unofficial respondent i.e. M.P.P. School. As the school is not undertaking to erect any fencing with gate, observing the same the Writ Petition is closed. Leaving it open to the Writ Petitioner to take legal recourse before appropriate forum for the relief claimed in the Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 15.09.2025 Harin 5 125 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 11293 OF 2024 Date: 15-09-2025 Harin