APHC010398822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21537/2025 Between: 1. JALLI PRABHAKAR, S/O. LATE. MUSALAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MANDEVARIPALEM, PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, PRESENTLY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RRIGATION CIRCLE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIVISION, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. HE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TCENTRAL SUB DUGGIRALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, .WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PITTLAVANIPALEM DISTRICT. 6. 6. TANGU SUBBA REDDY, S/O. SAMBIREDDY, R/O. ALLURU VILLAGE, H/O. REDDLAPALEM, PITTALAVANIPALEM MANDAL, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21537/2025 JALLI PRABHAKAR, S/O. LATE. MUSALAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MANDEVARIPALEM, PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, PRESENTLY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RRIGATION CIRCLE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KRISHNA WESTERN DELTA DIVISION, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. HE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TCENTRAL SUB DUGGIRALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, .WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPTALA TANGU SUBBA REDDY, S/O. SAMBIREDDY, R/O. ALLURU VILLAGE, H/O. REDDLAPALEM, PITTALAVANIPALEM MANDAL, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA JALLI PRABHAKAR, S/O. LATE. MUSALAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MANDEVARIPALEM, PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, PRESENTLY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RRIGATION CIRCLE WATER ENGINEER, KRISHNA WESTERN DELTA HE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TCENTRAL SUB-DIVISION, THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, .WATER RESOURCES MANDAL, BAPTALA TANGU SUBBA REDDY, S/O. SAMBIREDDY, R/O. ALLURU VILLAGE, H/O. REDDLAPALEM, PITTALAVANIPALEM MANDAL, 2 BAPATIA DISTRICT. 7. TANGU SAMBI REDDY, S/O. SREERAMULU, R/O. ALLURU VILLAGE, H/O. REDDLAPALEM, PITTALAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 8. VEGIRAJU KUMARA SWAMY RAJU SIVA, S/O. SUBBA RAJU R/O. ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 9 9. MANDE RAJESH, .S/O. PRASADA RAO, R/O.ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MANDEVARIPALEM PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 10. MANDE RAMESH, S/O. PRASADA RAO, R/O. ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MANDEVARIPALEM PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 11. KONGALA RAJA RAO, S/O. SUNDER RAO, R/O. ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MANDEVARIPALEM PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 12. PASUMATHI SALMON RAJU, /O. PRASADA RAO, R/O. ALAKAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MANDEVARIPALEM PITTLAVANIPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents more particularly respondent in insisting the petitionerS to vacate from his cultivation over land of Ac.0.64 cents covered by S.No.443 situated at Alluru Revenue Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatia District, at the instance of Respondent No.6 to 12 as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with his possession over the said land and 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 3 Pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s cultivation over land of Ac.0.64 cents covered by S.No.443 situated at Alluru Revenue Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, BapatLa District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 4 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.21537 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents more particularly 5th respondent in insisting the petitioner to vacate from his cultivation over land of Ac. 0.64 cents covered by S.No.443 situated at Alluru Revenue Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatia District, at the instance of Respondent No.6 to 12 as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with his possession over the said land and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Alakapuram Village, H/o. Mandevaripalem, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District and is cultivating the land to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents covered in survey No.443 situated at Alluru Revenue Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Bapatla District, which is under the control of Irrigation department. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the license granted by the respondent authorities (Irrigation department), the petitioner has been cultivating the said extent of land on payment of license fee of Rs.500/- to the 3rd respondent, since 2020. 3. While the matter being so, all of a sudden the respondents started listing the petitioner’s property in the prohibited property list and tried to 5 evict the petitioner, without issuing any notice or following due process of law, alleging that the petitioner has encroached the land belonging to the Water Resources Department. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation representing respondents. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation has furnished a copy of the instructions of the Executive Engineer i.e., respondent No.3 herein, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner is cultivating irrigation land illegally by encroaching the land in survey No.443 to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents in Alluru Channel of Alluru Village, Pittalavanipalem, without obtaining any permission from the Irrigation department. It is further stated that necessary action will be taken to fix up the boundaries of the irrigation land by conducting detailed survey through Mandal Surveyor and thereafter the petitioner will be vacated from the land encroached by him with the help of the revenue authorities by following the procedure under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 6. The petitioner has filed deposit receipt dated 21.02.2025 to prove that the petitioner has paid Rs.500/- to the 3rd respondent. Except the said document, no other document has been filed by the petitioner to prove that the said land has been leased out in favour of the petitioner by the Irrigation department even otherwise, the petitioner has been in 6 possession of the subject land since the year 2020, which fact is also admitted by the 3rd respondent in his instructions. But, however, as the respondents alleged that the petitioner has been cultivating the subject land by encroaching into the land, which in fact belongs to the irrigation department, instead of going into the merits, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, without following the due process of law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 20.08.2025 MDP