APHC010008302026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 23 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-130 [3446] Cheeli Kanthamma and another ...Appellants Vs. Maadireddy Nagababu and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. M. Vijaya Kumar, Sr. Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi Advocates for Respondents : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Mr. Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats Mrs. Dwarampudi Savithri CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 8th January 2026 P C : The case of the appellants is that the learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition bearing No.27372 of 2025 vide order, dated 07.11.2025, did not afford adequate opportunity of being heard, that no notice was served on the appellants through the Registry of this Court and that the appellants, having come to know that there was a petition filed in which they were respondents, rushed to file vakalatnama in the matter. 2 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.23 of 2026 2. It is also stated that a counter affidavit was filed on 06.11.2025, which was returned, that the matter was taken up on 07.11.2025 and learned Senior Counsel for the appellants appeared before the learned single Judge but on the same day without allowing the appellants an opportunity of filing a detailed counter, the matter was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to proceed, if it is found that there is any encroachment on the land classified as cheruvu poramboke, in accordance with the guidelines in W.P.(PIL) No.140 of 2022 by giving proper show cause notice and by inviting explanation from all encroachers. 3. While we feel that the order passed by the learned single Judge is quite in order and sufficient safeguards have been provided in the said order, which does not lead to any action directly against the appellants unless of course the land is found to be classified as cheruvu poramboke and the appellants are found to be encroaching upon the same, yet the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the entries made in the revenue record inserted do not reflect the correct position and that the area in question is not actually a cheruvu poramboke and further that the appellants had been residing on the said land for the last thirty five years or more. 4. All these issues, in our opinion, are disputed questions where neither this Court nor the learned single Judge would tread upon. If there is any entry made in the revenue records which does classify the parcel of land 3 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.23 of 2026 in question as cheruvu poramboke, and that the said entry has been entered wrongly, the remedies would lie elsewhere. 5. Be that as it may, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that in case the learned single Judge had given a reasonable opportunity of presenting its case based on record, which was annexed with the counter affidavit, which unfortunately was returned, things would have been different. 6. On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it can be seen that the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants have been recorded and does not reflect that there was any prayer made at all before the learned single Judge to the extent of claiming some time for filing the counter affidavit and the relevant record. 7. If such a request was in fact made which was not dealt with, then the appellants would be entitled to work out their remedies. 8. Be that as it may, while we find no merit in the present writ appeal, we leave the issue open to be considered by the learned single Judge, if an appropriate review petition is filed before the learned single Judge. 9. In the meantime, for a period of four (4) weeks, no coercive action shall be taken by the official respondents with a view to enable the appellants to avail the appropriate remedies. 10. This Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 4 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.23 of 2026 Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J kbs 5 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.23 of 2026 22 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.A.No.23 of 2026 Dt: 08.01.2026 kbs