APHC010278272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14009/2025 Between: 1. SATA PEDDI RAJULU,, S/O LATE PITCHAIAH, AGED 87 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 9-28-2, FLAT. NO.402, SVST RESIDENCY, BALAJI NAGAR, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530003. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MACHILIPATNAM DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SECTION-NO. 1, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GUDURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus TO DECALRE the order in the style of notice dated 26.05.2025 in proceedings No. AEE/Drainage/Machilipatnam-1/01 issued by the 3rd Respondent in directing me to demolish the compound wall existing in my private property situated in Sy.No.244-3A of Rayavaram Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contradictive to Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently SET-ASIDE the proceedings dated 26.05.2025 in No. AEE/Drainage/Machilipatnam-1/01 issued by the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice and to pass….” 2. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 1.31 acres in Sy.No.244-3A, an extent of 0.70 acres in Sy.No.244-2, and 0.70 acres in Sy.No.244-3B-2, totaling an extent of 2.40 acres in Rayavaram Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. Initially, the land admeasuring 1.31 acres in Sy.No.244-3A and 0.39 acres in Sy.No.244-2 was bequeathed to the wife of the petitioner, Smt. Sata Surendravathi, by her father, and the 4th respondent, after conducting a thorough enquiry, mutated her name in the revenue records on 07.01.2001 and issued a pattadar passbook in her favour. After the death of the petitioner’s wife on 15.04.2019, the revenue authorities mutated the petitioner’s name in the revenue records after duly conducting an enquiry. Since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interference from anyone in any manner. 4 3. While the matter stood thus, the government authorities, under their flagship program ‘Jagananna Bhuraksha,’ conducted a survey without the petitioner’s knowledge and changed the revenue record pertaining to the subject property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent’s office requesting for rectification of such entries in the revenue records. Despite this, all of a sudden, the present impugned order in the form of a notice dated 26.05.2025 was issued by respondent No.3, directing the petitioner to remove the boundary wall constructed by him encroaching on the embankment over the Kukkalakodu drain of Rayavaram Village within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. As can be seen from the proceedings sheet dated 29.05.2025, at the stage of admission of this writ petition, this Court was pleased to grant an order of status quo to be maintained by the respondents as on that date. Thereafter, the said interim order was extended from time to time. 6. Respondent No.2 has filed a detailed counter, duly stating that pending the writ petition, as per the instructions of respondent No.4, the Mandal Surveyor, Gudur Mandal, issued a notice on 21.06.2025 to the petitioner as well as the respondents to attend a joint survey for fixing the boundaries of the drain on 24.06.2025 at 10:00 AM. Accordingly, both parties were present at 5 the site of the survey, and the report was submitted stating that the wall constructed by the petitioner is well within the boundary of the petitioner’s agricultural land, and there is no encroachment on government land by the petitioner. 7. As can be seen from the counter filed by respondent No.2, it is an admitted fact that after duly conducting the joint survey, it was reported by the respondent authorities that the petitioner has constructed the wall well within the boundary of his agricultural land without any encroachment on government land. 8. Considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and also the fact that there is no encroachment by the petitioner, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice dated 26.05.2025. It is needless to say that the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MH 05.08.2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 104 WRIT PETITION NO: 14009/2025 MH 7 05.08.2025