APHC010051392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 106 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-67 [3446] Ambati Ramakrishna Reddy ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sk. Umar Abdullah representing CKR Associates Advocate for Respondents : GP for Muncipal Administration and Urban Development Mr. Gudapati Lakshminarayana, Standing Counsel for Municipalities CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 19th February 2026 P C : The construction raised by the petitioner/appellant herein is sought to be demolished by the official respondents on the alleged ground that there is some encroachment made by the appellant over the land which is to be used for laying down of an underground drainage line and subsequently a road over it. The appellant claims to be running a school. 2. It is alleged that the official respondents came down with machinery to demolish the wall and are interfering with the possession of the premises of the appellant. It is also stated that no survey was conducted in the 2 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.106 of 2026 presence of the appellant, much less was a copy of the survey report furnished to the appellant. 3. It is, in that backdrop, that the appellant claims that he had approached the learned single Judge of this Court by way of Writ Petition No.36313 of 2025, however, by virtue of the order impugned, dated 23.01.2026, the interim relief was refused without assigning any reasons as to how the learned single Judge found it not a case fit for grant of relief. 4. On a perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that while declining the grant of interim relief to the petitioner, time has been granted to the official respondents to file their objections and the matter is now listed for consideration on 07.03.2026. 5. We feel that till such time as objections are filed and the same is considered by the learned single Judge, maintenance of Status quo would balance equities in the present case and protect the interests of the appellant. We say so more for the reason that no reasons at all have been given by the learned single Judge as to why it was not a fit case for grant of interim relief. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let Status quo be maintained till such time as the case is considered on its own merits by the learned single Judge. 7. With a view to cut short the delay which may otherwise be caused through the Court processes, nothing would stop the official respondents from 3 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.106 of 2026 conducting a survey in the presence of the appellant immediately and delineating the appellant’s property from that portion of the land which is alleged to have been encroached upon by the appellant. In those circumstances, it would be open to the official respondents to demolish that portion of the construction which is otherwise encroached upon by the appellant, as per the fresh survey which might be conducted. 8. This Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J kbs 4 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.106 of 2026 121 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.A.No.106 of 2026 Dt: 19.02.2026 kbs