APHC010395522023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMB TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20269 OF 2023 Between: Boddu Dharma Rao, S/o Abraham, Hindu SC Mala by caste Aged about 35 years. Cultivation R/o 3-5, Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mandal East Godavari District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, East Godavari (Kakinada) District Kakinada 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari (Kakinada) District, Kakinada 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinda Division, Kakinada East Godavari (Kakinada) District 5. The Mandal Tahasildar, Pithapuram Mandal, Pithapuram Godavari (Kakinada) District 6. The Station House Officer, Pithapuram Rural P.S. Pithapuram East Godavari (Kakinada) District East ...Respondents 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 IMRP pleased to issue an order, direction or any other appropriate writ one in more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus that the action of the respondents 2 to 6 for not considering my representation dated 14-7-2022, 13- 3-2023 and 19-6-2023 with regard to the obstructing the cultivation over the land in R.S. No. 399/1 of Ac. 0.59 cents of Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District is illegal obstructing my right of living with honour and respect and contrary to the Article 14, 16, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice consequently directing the respondents 2 to 6 for protecting the right so as to cultivate my land over the land in R.S. No. 399/1 of Ac. 0.59 cents of Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mnadal, East Godavari District. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 directing the respondents 5 and 6 for protecting the petitioner's right for cultivating for this harvesting season of this agricultural year 2023-24 for plantation and etc., including all the agricultural operations over in R.S. No. 399/1 of Ac. 0.59 cents of Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, pending in the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R K ACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos 3 and 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 5; GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: I APHC010395522023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20269/2023 Between: 1.BODDU DHARMA RAO, S/0 ABRAHAM, HINDU SC MALA BY CASTE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CULTIVATION R/0 3-5, KOLANKA VILLAGE, PITHAPURAM MANUAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTU DISTRICT . 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI (KAKINADA) DISTRICT KAKINADA 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI (KAKINADA) DISTRICT, KAKINADA 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINDA DIVISION, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI (KAKINADA) DISTRICT 5.THE MANUAL TAHASILDAR, PITHAPURAM MANUAL, PITHAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI (KAKINADA) DISTRICT 6.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PITHAPURAM RURAL P.S. PITHAPURAM EAST GODAVARI (KAKINADA) 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 an order, direction dr any other appropriate writ one in more ^ particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus that the action of the respondents 2 to 6 for not considering my representation dated 14-7-2022, 13- 3-2023 and 19-6-2023 with regard to the obstructing the cultivation over the land in R.S. No. 399/1 of Ac. 0.59 cents of Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District is illegal obstructing my right of living with honour and respect and contrary to the Article 14, 16, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice consequently directing the respondents 2 to 6 for protecting the right so as to cultivate my land over the land in R.S. No. 399/1 of Ac. 0.59 cents of Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 directing the respondents 5 and 6 for protecting the petitioner's right for cultivating for this harvesting season of this agricultural year 2023-24 for plantation and etc., including all the agricultural operations over in R.S. No. 399/1 of Ac.0.59 cents of Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, pending in the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.R KACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri R.K.Acharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5, and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 3 and 6. ft <1 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owned an extent of Ac.0.59 cents in S.No.399/1 of Kolanka village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District and the said property is situated amidst lands belonging to other community people. He would submit that the other community people are not allowing the petitioner to cultivate his land, and hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 13.03.2023 to the 2 respondent in Spandana Grievance Cell; however, the 2^*^ respondent is not initiating any action. 2. nd Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that neither the State nor its instrumentalities are interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property. He would also submit that even according to the averments in the affidavit, the owners of surrounding lands, allegedly, are not allowing the petitioner to cultivate his land, and in such a case, the petitioner must have approached the competent civil Court seeking redressal of his grievance. 3. CONSIDERATION: In Paragraph-4 of the writ affidavit, it was pleaded about purchase of the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 16.04.1986 vide document No.846 of 1986 by the grandfather of the petitioner. In Paragraph 3 of the writ affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner’s land is situated amidst the lands of the other community people, and they are not allowing the The petitioner did not array any of the 4. petitioner to cultivate his land, individuals as party respondents to the writ petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, neither the State nor its instrumentalities are interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property. If any neighbouring farmer is interfering with the petitioner’s possession df the property, the petitioner must approach the competent civil Court seeking redressal of his grievance. 5. In fact, the petitioner has to establish the right of easement and alleged interference by presenting evidence. No doubt, right to property is safeguarded under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. However, in the facts of this case, even going by the averments in the writ affidavit, one Sri Miriyala Gani Raju is not allowing the petitioner to cultivate his land. In such circumstances, the proper remedy available to the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this court, is to approach a jurisdictional civil court. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner will initiate necessary steps before the jurisdictional civil court. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking redressal of his grievance. No order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// u SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntu District 2. The District Collector, East Godavari (Kakinada) District Kakinada 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari (Kakinada) District, Kakinada 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinda Division, Kakinada East Godavari (Kakinada) District 5. The Mandal Tahasildar, Pithapuram Mandal, Pithapuram, East Godavari (Kakinada) District 6. The Station House Officer, Pithapuram Rural P S. Pithapuram East Godavari (Kakinada) District mr 7. One CC to Sri. R K Acharyulu Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Home High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP For Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 10. GSC HIGH COURT DATED:22/07/2025 f 0 ; AUG 2025 ^ ^ . Current Section ORDER WP NO. 20269 OF 2023 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS