APHC010492922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26880 OF 2026 Between: 1. MANIKONDA SRINIVASA KUMAR, Son of M V Krishna Rao Aged 59 years Residing at 23 and 24 Sunrise Layout Behind JC Industrial Area Yelechenahalli Bangalore South Bangalore Karnataka 560062 2. Manikonda Anasuya, Wife of M V Krishna Rao Aged 88 years Residing at 3 103 Rajeswari Puntha Near Sugars Colony Velpuru West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh 534222 ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department A P Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravati 522238 2. The District Collector, Bhimavaram West Godavari District 534201 3. The Tanuku Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner West Godavari District 534211 4. The Town Planning Officer, Tanuku Municipality West Godavari District 534211 5. The Tahsildar, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District 534211 ...Respondents 2 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the existing pathway of the petitioners from the subject land in an extent of Ac 0.10 2 3 cents in Sy No 22 4C Ac 0.05 cents and 145.83 Sq Yds in Sy No 22 8 situated in Velupuru Village Tanuku Sub Registrar Area West Godavari District connecting to the main road which is originally classified as Puntha and thereby obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioners as highly arbitrary illegal unjust and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the land which is used by the petitioners for their ingress and egress to the main 20 ft road and to regularize the same in favour of the petitioners by levying reasonable fees IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the land which is used by the petitioners for their ingress and egress to the main 20 ft road, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SUDEEPTHI POTLURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26880 OF 2026 The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri P. D. Mahindra, learned counsel representing Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4/Municipality. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the existing pathway of the petitioners from the subject land of an extent of Ac.0.10 2/3 cents in Sy.No.22/AC, Ac.0.05 cents and 145.83 Sq.yds in Sy.No.22/8 situated in Velupuru Village, Tanuku Sub-Registrar Area, West Godavari District, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition. 3. It is contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject property having purchased the same in the year 1977 through a registered sale deed No.828/1977 dated 20-04-1977. It is contended that the property has direct access to the existing 80 feet road. It is further contended that the petitioners have laid 9 feet pathway in their land for their ingress and egress and for the neighbours ingress and egress as well. As per the FMB sketch plan on the northern side of the petitioner’s property, a 80 feet road exists in Sy.No.21 a part which is classified as Puntha, out of the said extent 4 presently the road exists only in an extent of 20 feet, the either side of the said 20 feet road is under encroachment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointing out to the map annexed to the Writ Affidavit contends that on either side of the road there are certain encroachments, and the petitioners have direct access to their property from the 20 feet road. However, the respondents under the pretext of removing encroachments on the either side of the road, are preventing access to the Road. The learned counsel argues the petitioner has a reasonable belief that access to the main road would be completely closed. 5. When the matter has been taken up for consideration today, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4/Municipality and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has placed before the court a copy of written remarks received by them in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect that as per the Master Plan of Tanuku municipality, a 40 feet wide road has been proposed in the said area as the existing road on ground is presently only above 20 feet in width. As the Government lands and the roads are required to be protected and kept free from unauthorized encroachments and obstructions, regular ward inspections are conducted by the authorities. During such an inspection, it was noticed that the petitioners have encroached the government land in R.S.No.21, Velupuru, Tanuku by erecting a cattle shed. During the inspection it was also noticed that a fencing had been laid by the petitioners and the same was removed as the same was causing obstruction to the general public in fetching water from the municipal 5 hand pump existing in the said location. The municipal authorities have also requested to remove the cattle shed, the petitioner sought 15 days time for removal of the same however, approached this court by misrepresenting the facts. It is further stated that the respondent/Municipality has neither removed nor disturbed any lawful patta land or private property. The action taken was limited to removal of the unauthorized fencing/encroachment in the vacant Government land. 6. The written instructions of the respective respondents to the respective learned Standing Counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case are taken on record. 7. Considered the submissions. Although the respondents' actions cannot be faulted for attempting to protect properties that may be encroached upon, however they should not, under the guise of protecting their lands, prevent the petitioners from accessing the main road (20-foot road). Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, observing that if any proposal is made either for road widening or removal of unauthorised constructions, as contended by the respondents, as essential for protection of the government lands, this order will not prevent their lawful actions in the said regard; however, while taking such measures, the respondents are directed not to prevent the petitioner's access to the existing main road. 6 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 19-09-2026 MSI 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26880 OF 2026 Dated: 19-09-2026 MSI