APHC010330302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16557/2025 Between: 1. THE INFANT JESUS SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ISSAC NADAKAL VARKEY S/O VARKEY NADAKAL LATE, AGED 74, TEKKALI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B.R.R. VAMSADHARA PROJECT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TEKKALI, SRIKAKUKLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENIGINEER, B.R.R. VAMSADHARA PROJECT, IRRIGATION DEPT, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 2 VS,J W.P.No.16557 of 2025 be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, specifically one in WRIT OF MANDAMUS aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in interfering with Petitioners peaceful possession, ownership of the School Bulding and its Compound wall which was situated in Sy No 371/2 total extent of Ac 3.00 cents with assessment No 7379, 7380,7381 at Raghunadhapuram Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District and threaten to demolish the above said school building and compound wall, which is highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 300-A, 14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession, and not to demolish the School Building and its Compound Wall situated in Sy No 371/2 total extent of Ac3.00 cents with assessment No 7379, 7380,7381 at Raghunadhapuram Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District without following any procedure under law and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere and not to demolish and dispossess the petitioners School Building and its Compound Wall situated in Sy No 371/2 total extent of Ac 3.00 cents with assessment No 7379, 7380,7381 at Raghunadhapuram Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.16557 of 2025 ORDER This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, specifically one in WRIT OF MANDAMUS aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in interfering with Petitioners peaceful possession ownership of the School Building and its Compound wall which was situated in Sy.No.371/2 total extent of Ac.3-00 cents with assessment No.7379, 7380, 7381 at Raghunadhapuram Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District and threaten to demolish the above said school building and compound wall, which is highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 300-A, 14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession, and not to demolish the School Building and its Compound Wall situated in Sy.No.371/2 total extent of Ac.3-00 cents with assessment No.7379, 7380, 7381 at Raghunadhapuram Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District without following any procedure under law….” 2. The petitioner society is the owner of a total extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.371/2, Raghunadhapuram Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District, having purchased the same from three individuals through registered sales vide document Nos.682/1996 dated 29.03.1996, 813 dated 12.04.1996, 835/1996 dated 15.04.1996 and 1154/2023 dated 27.03.2023. 3. The case of the petitioner society is that, since the date of purchase, the petitioner society has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner society has constructed a building and is operating the Infrant Jesus Social Service Society School in the said property. Thereafter, the petitioner society has submitted a representation 4 VS,J W.P.No.16557 of 2025 to the Executive Engineer seeking permission to construct a culvert so that the children could cross the channel safely. Pursuant to the said representation, the Executive Engineer, V.P. Maintenance Division, Narasannapeta, granted permission for construction of the culvert, at the cost to be borne by the petitioner, with a view to facilitate the small children to cross the canal, in the year 2001. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, now the respondents are attempting to demolish the petitioner’s school compound wall on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon the canal. Challenging the said action, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed sale deeds to prove title over the subject property. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Irrigation and Revenue for respondents. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on oral instructions, stated that, as the petitioner society has constructed a compound wall over the canal, the respondents have orally instructed the petitioner to remove the compound wall but have not attempted to demolish the same. But, however, has stated that if at all they intend to interfere with the petitioner’s property, they will follow due process of law. 5 VS,J W.P.No.16557 of 2025 7. Recording the above submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, without going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 11.08.2025 KGR