APHC010580162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 29812/2025 Between: 1. AVULA NAG KUMAR, S/O.SUBBA RAO, OCCUPATION. REPORTER, R/O. NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523230. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KANIGIRI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY COMMISSIONER,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KANIGIRIMANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS (R AND B) DEPARTMENT KANIGIRIMANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ questioning the questioning the 2 action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing notice dated 15-10-2025, alleging that the Petitioner has encroached upon a government road by constructing a House an extent of 0.02 cents in Survey No. 432, situated at Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, and directing the Petitioner to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction within seven days, failing which action would be taken as per law., is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with petitioner's peaceful possession of property 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 to direct the Respondents not to interfere in any manner with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the constructing house an extent of 0.02 cents in Survey No. 432, situated at Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 15.10.2025 of the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner is called upon to remove the unauthorized occupation of the road margin. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued the possession certificate by the 5th respondent on 22.06.2025 whereby two cents of land in Sy.No.432 of the 2nd respondent municipality was determined to be in possession of the petitioner by the 5th respondent. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent duly intimating that the neighbours of the petitioner would have encroached onto the road margin and that the neighbor of the petitioner had filed W.P. No.25494 of 2025, wherein this Court directed the 2nd respondent therein to depute a town surveyor to visit the subject construction of the 7th respondent and the petitioner therein and submit a report. This Court, after having been furnished with the report, recorded the instructions received and also the subsequent action initiated by the 2nd respondent against the 7th respondent. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not an encroacher and without determining the extent of encroachment, the respondents could not have conducted any survey without issuing any notice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the survey is not conducted in presence of the petitioner. 4 5. Considering the submissions, it is evident that the petitioner and the neighbor of the petitioner are at dispute and seem to be accusing each other of encroaching onto the road margin. The 2nd respondent ought to have conducted the survey in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 18.10.2025. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue Department submits that the petitioner was granted a house possession certificate on 22.06.2025 and that he is in possession of the same. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that, in pursuance of the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 25494 of 2025, the proceedings dated 15.10.2025 were issued. 8. It is evident from the said proceedings that the respondents have not determined the extent of encroachment by the petitioner onto the public road. It is also not in dispute that the respondent authorities have not conducted a survey in the presence of the petitioner. 9. However, the impugned notice dated 15.10.2025 is silent on the extent of the encroachment by the petitioner on the public road. The grievance of the petitioner can be addressed by directing respondent Nos. 2, 5, and 6 to conduct a joint survey in the presence of the petitioner and determine the extent of encroachment by the petitioner onto the public road, if any, and thereafter take appropriate action. Pending such determination, the possession or enjoyment of the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. 5 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 30.10.2025 PNS