APHC010367842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19461/2025 Between: 1. DODDIPATLA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA BHAGIRATHA RAO, BHAGIRATHA RAO, S/0. LATE NARAYANA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGED 66 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.3-45/4, VEERAVARAM VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533431. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM REVENUE DIVISION, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. VEERAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VEERAVARAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, YELERU IRRIGATION DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PEDDAPURAM TOWN, KAKINADA DISTRICT 2 VS,J W.P.NO.19461 OF 2025 ...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 a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the aggrieved by the action of the Respondents 3 to 6 in not protecting the canal and its bund land in an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.222 and an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.216 of Veeravaram village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District and also proposed to lay road in the said land by encroaching my connected land to create an ingress and egress of few of the land owners beside our land inspite of the statement before the honble court in W.P. No. 29456 of 2023 by the respondents is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, Revenue Board Standing Orders and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb and change the canal and its land for any other purpose other than the canal in an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.222 and an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.216 of Veeravaram village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District 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 leased to direct the respondents not to change or alter the nature of the land in an extent of Ac. 1.10 cents in Sy.No.222 and an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.216 of Veeravaram village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District and not canal and its land pending disposal of the above other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the to form any road in the writ petition and pasS IA NO: 2 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 11.08.2025 in WP.No.19461 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO 3 VS,J W.P.NO.19461 OF 2025 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.19461 OF 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19461/2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 3 to 6 in not protecting the canal and its bund land in an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.222 and an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.216 of Veeravaram village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District and also proposed to lay road in the said land by encroaching my connected land to create an ingress and egress of few of the land owners beside our land inspite of the statement before the honble court in W.P. No. 29456 of 2023 by the respondents is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, Revenue Board Standing Orders and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb and change the canal and its land for any other purpose other than the canal in an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.222 and an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.216 of Veeravaram village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District.” 2. The petitioner along with family members, are the absolute owners, possessors and enjoyers of land to an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.221 and Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.217, totaling an extent of Ac.0.95 cents, situated at Veeravaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District. The said lands were purchased way back in the year 1958 vide registered document No.876/1958 by the petitioner‟s father along with five others for valuable consideration. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner and his family members have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.19461 OF 2025 3. The case of the petitioner is that on the eastern side of their land to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.217, there exists a „Prakka Potu‟ irrigation canal to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.222 and Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.216 of Veeravaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District. The said irrigation canal has been in existence from time immemorial and the same is also reflected in the revenue records. In the year 2023, the revenue officials with an intention to create a road to provide access to the landowners of the fag end of the said canal, proposed to fill up the canal by encroached upon a portion of the petitioner‟s land, though there already exists a passage for ingress and egress to reach the main road. Due to the closing of the irrigation canal, the only source of drawing water to the petitioner‟s agricultural lands was affected. Therefore, the Bodhe has to be restored to its original position by removing the encroachments and silt deposits. In view of the encroachments and occupations made on the canal, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.29456 of 2023. 4. When the said writ petition came up for admission, the respondents, on instructions, reported that they were not taking any steps for laying of the road and, basing on the said instructions, the writ petition was disposed of as under:- “In view of the same, the Writ Petition is closed. However, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek recourse of law in the event any fresh cause of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6 VS,J W.P.NO.19461 OF 2025 5. While the things stood thus, due to a change in the Government, the respondents, with the active assistance of the political leaders, are again trying to raise their old demand of laying a road by closing the canal and other punta roads, without following any procedure. They proposed to extend the road to 14 feet from the existing edge of the road and, if the road is laid, the entire canal would be closed, ignoring the undertaking given by the respondents in the earlier writ petition. As the respondents initiated fresh steps to form a road, the present writ petition was filed. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 11.08.2025, learned counsel representing the 4th respondent furnished a copy of instructions of the Tahsildar, Kirlampudi Mandal, dated 04.08.2025, wherein it was stated that upon ground verification, it was identified that the petitioner himself had encroached upon Government land (Canal Poramboke) and, suppressing the said fact, filed the present writ petition. But, however, in the said instructions, it was also stated that the Revenue Department had not proposed to form or lay any road in the subject land. Considering the same, this Court passed an interim order on 11.08.2025 as under:- “In view of the said instructions, there shall be an interim direction, directing the respondents not to form or lay any road in the subject land, pending the writ petition.” 7 VS,J W.P.NO.19461 OF 2025 7. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is admitted that the Revenue Department has not proposed to lay or form any road in the subject lands and that the petitioner‟s apprehension is wholly misconceived. On the contrary, the petitioner‟s alleged illegal encroachments are obstructing the peaceful ingress and egress of ryots into their agricultural lands, due to which local farmers have raised objections. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for the respondents. 9. In view of the instructions submitted by the 4th respondent dated 04.08.2025, wherein it is admitted that the Revenue Department has not proposed to form or lay any road in the subject land as complained by the petitioner, and in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 11.08.2025, this Court is of the considered view that no further adjudication is required. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to form or lay any road in the subject land except in accordance with due process of law. However, the respondents are also at liberty to initiate appropriate action as against the petitioner in accordance with law, if necessitated. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :23.12.2025 JLV 8 VS,J W.P.NO.19461 OF 2025 211 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19461/2025 Dt.23.12.2025 JLV