APHC010035742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 34 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3552] M Chandra Sekhar ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Amaravati and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. DUGGIRALA SUBASH Advocate for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 11th February 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Grievance of petitioner in present Public Interest Litigation is with regard to the illegal re-classification of Government land in Survey No.299/6, besides allowing development of lay-out in adjacent lands in Survey Nos.299/3 and 311 of Namburu Village, Peda Kakani Mandal, Guntur District, which otherwise, classified as Government lands and, in turn, such development of layout in a way being obstructive to natural drain endangering surrounding agricultural and residential areas to be in violation of statutory provisions, in particular, the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971. 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.34 of 2026 2. (a) Petitioner claims that the lands falling in Survey Nos.298, 299, 301, and 306 of Namburu Village, Peda Kakani Mandal, Guntur District, were converted into Vagu Poramboke way back in the year 1910. Subsequently, in the year 1919, Survey No.299 came to be sub-divided, of which, Survey No.299/3 was shown as assessed waste, and later the same was assigned with DKT pattas. Even now, Survey No.299/3 continues to be placed under prohibited list of properties in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as it continues to retain the character as Vagu Poramboke. Likewise, Survey No.299/6, was also classified as Vagu Poramboke. Although, an extent of Ac.0.98 cents of the same was assigned with D.K.T. patta in the year 1983, continues to retain the said character and actively serves as drainage channel. Even the said parcel of land has been included in the prohibited list of properties. The said portion of the property is now claimed to be reclassified from Vagu Poramboke to Donka Poramboke in order to facilitate layout development, which is impermissible. (b) Further, it is claimed that the land in Survey No.311, though as per report of 3rd respondent, reflects to be patta assigned land, the same continues to vest with the Government, therefore, the assignee cannot come up with any development of layout contrary to the terms and conditions of such assignment and hence, the very layout sanctioned in favour of 6th respondent would be illegal. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.34 of 2026 3. Flagging aforesaid objections, petitioner claims to have submitted representation, dated 14.10.2025, to 2nd respondent and representation, dated 19.10.2025, to 3rd respondent, in particular, highlighting the illegal activity in regard to Survey No.299/6. Being dissatisfied with the response of the aforesaid respondents, petitioner preferred present Public Interest Litigation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the present petition, contended that the reclassification of land from Vagu Poramboke to Donka Poramboke in Survey No.299/6, ignoring the fact that the said parcel of land had been put to use for passing of drain collected from uplands, is clearly impermissible. Despite specific complaint, the respondents overlooked the aforesaid aspect, and in fact, the respondents are under legal obligation to protect the water bodies in the light of authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Even with respect to Survey No.299/3, inasmuch as the same has been classified as Vagu Poramboke, a water body, the same also requires to be protected and kept intact. 6. We have gone through the pleadings and also the documents annexed along with present petition. The representations, dated 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.34 of 2026 14.10.2025 and 19.10.2025, as submitted to respondents 2 and 3, specifically deal with the aspect of reclassification of land in Survey No.299/6 from Government land to that of Donka Poramboke and allowing development of layout by 6th respondent, which potentially obstructs the flow of water in Survey No.299/6, respectively. Both these representations do not in any manner deal with the issues that have been highlighted with respect to Survey Nos.299/3 and 311. 7. Nevertheless, in response to representation, dated 14.10.2025, the 4th respondent issued endorsement, dated 29.12.2025, inter alia, replying that the land in Survey No.299/6 though has been assigned and not in cultivation from past few years, the same continues to be recorded as Government Donka Poramboke in the records. It is also placed in the prohibitory list of properties and thereby duly protected from any alienations. It is also stated that though initially the land in Survey No.299 was converted into Vagu Poramboke, based on the existence of natural drain at relevant point of time, by way of Gazette, dated 02.01.1910, eventually, by efflux of time, the nature of land later reclassified upon sub-division being effected and Survey No.299/3 was converted into assessed waste and Survey No.299/6 was continued to be retained as Vagu Poramboke. 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.34 of 2026 8. Further, due to subsequent developments, as the flow of water ceased and only a natural drainage depression continued to exist, in the year 1977, the land in Survey No.299/6 came to be assigned. Therefore, it has been asserted that there were no traces of drain flowing through the said land. 9. Similarly, the 3rd respondent has also replied, vide letter, dated 12.01.2026, informing that the layout approved in favour of 6th respondent was falling in Survey Nos.299/3 and 311, to an extent of Ac.11.42 cents, and that the land in Survey No.299/6 was not forming part of the said layout. Further, it is also informed that the layout was approved considering the adjacent land shown in Survey No.299/6 to be Donka, and hence, the request for cancellation of approved layout came to be rejected. 10. The letters referred to above issued by respondents 3 and 4, in our opinion, do advert to the issue in relation to Survey No.299/6 and conclude that aforesaid parcel of land has been assigned way back in the year 1977 itself in favour of an assignee inasmuch as the said land ceased to be utilized for flow of drain and such assignment continued thereafter. The said respondents also stated that the land continues to be classified as Donka Poramboke and figures in prohibited list of properties in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Such being 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.34 of 2026 the position, the contention of petitioner that the subject land has been reclassified as Donka Poramboke in order to facilitate development of layout is unfounded. 11. However, insofar as the other issues relating to land in Survey Nos.299/3 and 311, which according to the petitioner, are Government lands, in particular, the land in Survey No.299/3 claimed to be classified as Vagu Poramboke requires to be protected, requires examination based on specific and cogent material documents, which are not placed before us. Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the concerned authorities with appropriate representation providing the details thereof and on such representation or complaint being made, the concerned authorities are directed to look into the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs