APHC010493902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the seventh The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. Between: Mataka Satyavati and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the respondent 1. Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju 2. G.P. for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev 3. G.P. for Roads Buildings 4. G.P. for Revenue 5. G.P. for Irrigation and 6. Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and G IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) seventh day of September, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. 26487 of 2025 Mataka Satyavati … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ... Respondent etitioner: Mangena Sree Rama Rao espondents: Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju or Panchayat Raj Rural Dev for Roads Buildings for Revenue for Irrigation and CAD Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] , two thousand and twenty six Petitioner Respondents Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Panchayats 2 W.P. No.26487 of 2025 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 in not removing the encroachment / shed / kiosk erected by the unofficial respondent in front of the northern side of the petitioner's house bearing D.No. 9-76, Uppada village, G.Kothapalli mandal, Kakinada district (at K.M.23/400 road leads to Samarlakota to Uppada), thereby blocking of the petitioner's ingress and aggress and also encroachment of the irrigation canal as illegal and consequently direct the official respondents to remove the above said encroachment / shed / kiosk. 2. The respondents Nos. 3 and 7 are present as per the direction of this Court by order, dated 17.08.2026. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that no further order is required in view of removal of the subject matter encroachment, subsequent to posting the writ petition for appearance of the respondents Nos. 3 and 7. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of recording the removal of the encroachment. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________ ___ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 07.09.2026 PNV