IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) '' THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9255 OF 2025 Between: Kona Satya Rushi, S/o. Late Sriramulu, aged 58 years, Occ Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, R/o. D.No. 2-123/2, East Vipparru Village, Iragavaram MandaL, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND i * 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chairman, Bharat Bhavan, 4 and 6, Curnmbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B.No. 688, Mumbai-400001. 3. The Territory Manager(Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha Territory, Nava Base P.O. Near Dhannareddy Godowns, Visakhapatnam-530 014, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Sales Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Eluru District at Eluru. 5. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram. 6. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tadepalligudem Division, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 8. The Tahsildar, Iragavaram, Mandal, West Godavari District. 9. The Gram Panchayat, East Vipparru, Rep. by its Secretary, East Vipparru Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. lO.Yatam Nageswaramma, W/o. China Satyanarayana, aged 60 years, R/o. D.No. 12-2-17, Patha Bazar, Near Sri Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, Narsapur, West Godavari District. II.Meka Krishna Veni, W/o. Meka Satya Sesha Kumar, Aged 30 years, R/o. D.No. 11-1-35, Darga Street, Near Darga, Narsapur, West Godavari District. ...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 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents authorities in granting permissions for establishment of petrol bunk in R.S.Nos. 116/1, 116/4 and 116/11 to an extent of Ac.0-33 cents situated in East Vipparru Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District by ignoring the Petitioners easementary rights over the said land and setting up the petrol bunk by closing the Petitioner s way to approach his land from R Ss B Road and No Objection Certificates (NOC) granted by the authorities without looking into the easementary rights of the Petitioner for way to approach his lands as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles natural justice and violative of Articles 14 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities to restore the easement rights/way to the Petitioner to approach his lands lA 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 Respondent No. 11 not to raise any further constructions including underground tanks for the proposed Service Station (Petrol Bunk) on the land ad-measuring Ac.0-33 cents situated in R.S.Nos. 116/1, 116/4 and 116/11 of East Vipparru Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SRIDHARA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 4: SRI SAILESH, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTED SRI SVSS SIVARAM Counsel for the Respondents No.5, 7 & 8; GP FOR REVENUE / Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.10,11; None The Court made the following: Order APHC01Q176802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9255/2025 Between; Kona Satya Rushi ...PETITIONER AND 11 ion Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) v^l II Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sridhara Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Sailesh, learned counsel representing Sri SVSS Sivaram, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 5, 7 & 8, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent. Notice in respect of respondents 10 & 11 is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed affecting their rights and interests. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in granting permission in establishing a petrol bunk in R.S.Nos.116/1, 116/4 and 116/11 to an extent of Ac.0-33 cents in East Vipparru village, Iragavaram 2. 2 Mandal, West Godavari District by ignoring the petitioner’s easementary rights over the said land, as illegal and arbitrary. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-41 cents in R.S.No.116/5 of East Vipparru village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioner purchased land under a registered sale deed dated 23.03.1988. The petitioner converted the land from Agriculture to non agriculture. The petitioner and his vendor are having easementary rights over the land towards the Western side i.e., Sy.Nos.116/1, 116/4 and 116/11 to an extent of Ac.0-47 cents. 3. (b) 10‘^ respondent, owner of Ac.0-47 cents in R.S.Nos.116/1, 116/4 and 116/11, leased out Ac.0-33 cents out of Ac.0-47 cents to the 11*^ respondent for establishing of petrol retail outlet/petrol bunk for 22 years 6 months commencing from 16.09.2023 to 15.03.2046. The 10‘^ respondent converted the land from agriculture to non-agricultural land. The 11 respondent made an application dated 21.09.2023 to the 2'"^ respondent to set up a petroleum retail outlet in Ac.0-33 cents in Sy. No. 116/1, 116/4 and 116/11. The 3'^^ respondent granted a letter of intent (LOI) vide VRT/WE Peravali to Penugonda on SH@@ on LHS/G, dated 20.11.2023 to the 1l'^ respondent for the setting up of a petrol bunk. The petitioner objected; however, the objections were not considered properly, (c) The petitioner, along with his wife and brother, filed suit O.S.No.502 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tanuku seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of way of the plaintiffs. The respondents 2 to 4 failed to adhere to Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed. th 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, further contends that to access the main road from the 3 th petitioner’s land, it is necessary to pass through the land of the 10 respondent, where a petrol bunk has been established. Counsel also contends that the establishment of the petroleum outlet has hindered the petitioner’s easement rights. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the respondents followed the procedure. 5. As seen from the pleadings and material on record, the petitioner filed suit O.S.No.502 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tanuku seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants. The 1 defendant in the suit is the respondent; 2 respondent; the 3’’'^ defendant is the respondent, and the 4**^ defendant is the 5^*^ respondent. As seen from the averments in the plaint, the petitioner is asking for a perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering right of way of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property items 1 to 3 to the main road on the West. A written statement was filed by defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. 6. St nd rd defendant is the 3 Whether the petitioner’s right of easement has been hindered or not is a disputed question of fact. This issue will be adjudicated by the civil court after a full-fledged trial. Any finding recorded at this stage, before a decision by the civil court, would undoubtedly prejudice one party or the other. 7. Apart from that, whether the petitioner got the right of easement is not a disputed fact, and the same normally will not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In Sohan Lai vs. Union of lndia\ Apex Court observed as under; 9. “We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan ^ 1957 SCR 738 4 Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising by issuing writs. There are questions of fact and law which dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property ad was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution such declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered ” are in 10. In Smt. Parvatibai Subhanrao vs. Anwarali Hasanali Makani^ Court held that the Court ordinarily will not determine the title immovable property under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In cases relating to immovable properties which are governed by the ordinary civil law, the High Court should not exercise its special jurisdiction under the Constitution unless the circumstances are exceptional. Apex over the 11. In Mohan Pandey And Another vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria And Others^, Apex Court observed as under- “A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights and the remedy under it, is not available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal,’ are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly.” and 12. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate infringement of a fundamental right or the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court any under Article 226. In 'l99Qfr) see 414 ^ 1992 (4) see 61 5 the absence of such infringement, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER h \\ //TRUE COPY// iv. ■I! To, 1. One CC to SRI RAMBABU KOPPiNEEDI Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI SRIDHARA MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI SVSS SIVARAM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 10/04/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.9255 of 2025 X 28SEP2n75 g Current Section . DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS