Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16678 (AP)

CHALLA RANGA SWAMY v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/3869/2026 · 2026-02-09

B Krishna Mohan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010067142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3869/2026 Between: 1. CHALLA RANGA SWAMY, S/O. CHALLA RANGANAYAKULU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT H. NO. 1-160-15, PAPAIPALLI VILLAGE, BESTAWARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523334 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, BESTAWARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 523334. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BESTAWARIPETA POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523334. 4. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, , PAPAIPALLI VILLAGE, BESTAWARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523334. 5. THE PAPAIPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS., PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PAPAIPALLI VILLAGE, BESTAWARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523334. 6. SRI RAVI KUMAR REDDY, S/O MADDHALA SUBBA REDDY, NEAR STATE BANK, PITIKAYAGULLA VILLAGE, BESTAWARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523334. 2 BKM,J W.P.No.3869 of 2026 7. SRI SHAIK SHEBBHAR, S/O AIYASH, PAPAIPALLI VILLAGE, MEE SEVA, NEAR ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENABNAK, MNADLAVARI STREET, BESTAWARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523334. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 7, in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property situated in an extent of 90.22 Square Yardsin Survey No. 276 of Papaipalli Village, Bestawaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District, by threatening dispossession, summoning the petitioner to the police station and attempting forcible eviction, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possessionin an extent of 90.22 Square Yardsin Survey No. 276 of Papaipalli Village, Bestawaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass 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 respondents, particularly Respondents 2 to 7, not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possessionin an extent of 90.22 Square Yardsin Survey No. 276 of Papaipalli Village, Bestawaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District,and enjoyment of the description of the property, not to dispossess, demolish or alter the nature of the property, and not to harass or coerce the petitioner through police or revenue machinery, except by due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 BKM,J W.P.No.3869 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 2. The issuance of notices to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to them even if it is disposed of in their absence. 3. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property situated in an extent of 90.22 Square Yards in Survey No.276 of Papaipalli Village, Bestawaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District, by threatening dispossession, summoning the petitioner to the police station and attempting forcible eviction. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the registered Settlement Deed dated 25.03.2015, the petitioner’s mother got the subject property and ever since their family has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the 6th respondent is trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, for which, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are supporting. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 09.02.2026 submits 4 BKM,J W.P.No.3869 of 2026 that as per the Resettlement Register of Papaipalli Village, the land in Sy.No.276 to an extent of Ac.3.75 cents is classified as patta land and the pattadar name was noted as Mallamu Latchanna. Further the Sy.No.276 was subdivided into Sy.No.276-1 to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents and Sy.No.276-2 to an extent of Ac.3.69 cents. 6. As per the current web land Adangal the following pattadar names are noted: L.P.No. L.P.Extent Pattadar Name 57 0.07 National Highway 58 3.76 Residentaial Houses 7. There are residential houses in L.P.M.No./Sy.No.58/276-2 for an extent of Ac.3.76 cents. The said land is vested with the Grampanchayat, Papaipalli. The 2nd respondent is not connected to this issue and no action has been initiated against the petitioner in connection with the subject land. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same may be recorded and the case may be disposed of. 9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, recording the said instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 09.02.2026, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. However, liberty is given to the petitioner as the 6th respondent allegedly interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner with respect to the subject property to initiate appropriate 5 BKM,J W.P.No.3869 of 2026 proceedings before the competent Court, if so warranted and if so advised in accordance with law. The said written instructions shall be made as part of the Court record. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 10.02.2026 PGT