Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16662 (AP)

Patnam Venkata Subbaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/3695/2026 · 2026-02-17

B Krishna Mohan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010063842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3695/2026 Between: 1. PATNAM VENKATA SUBBAIAH,, S/O BODEIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF GANIVANIPADU VILLAGE, KONIKALAMITIA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001. 2. PATNAM VENKATASWARALU, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. OCCUPATION CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF GANIVANIPADU VILLAGE, KONIKALAMITIA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT -523001. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI - 522231. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. - 523001 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KONIKALAMITIA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523241. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toPleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents no.4 in interfering with Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.6.00 cents in Sy.No.79 of Ganivanipadu Village, Konikalamitia Mandal Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 'IQ (I) (g) 3nd 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents no. 4 to consider Petitioners representation dated 17.11.2025 and not to interfere with Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land except in accordance with law 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 pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated. 17.11.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRI SARAN VANKAYALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4th respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.6.00 cents in Sy.No.79 of Ganivanipadu Village, Konikalamitla Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 4th respondent submits that as per the fair land register of Ganivanipadu Village, the total extent of Ac.125.50 cents under Sy.No.79 is classified as Hill Poramboke. The extent of Ac.6.00 cents claimed by the petitioners was not assigned to them. The said Sy.No.79 was sub divided as noted below: Sy. No. After Sub Division 79 79/1 Ac.23.78 Hill Poramboke 79/2 Ac.82.69 Proposed for Integrated bio gas plant 79/3 Ac.1.22 Cart Track 79/4 Ac.17.80 Proposed for Integrated bio gas plant Total Ac.125.50 4. The subject land was allotted to the NREDCAP vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 09.03.2025. The claim of the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the last 60 years as per the representation dated 17.11.2025 is not correct. 4 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, recording the said instructions of the 4th respondent, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. However, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to deal with the subject land strictly in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The written instructions of the 4th respondent shall be made as part of the court record. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 18.02.2026 NNN