Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18565 (AP)

NAMA SATHYANARAYANA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/6331/2026 · 2026-03-30

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010119282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6331/2026 Between: 1. NAMA SATHYANARAYANA, S/O THATAIAH @ NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O GOKIVADA VILLAGE, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533450. 2. NAMA SURYA CHANDRA KRISHNANANDA,, S/O PEDDI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 43, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O GOKIVADA VILLAGE, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533450. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 511020. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 533450. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER / RURAL WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533450. 5. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, RURAL WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533450. 6. GOKIVADA GRAM PANCHAYAT, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT., REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY 533450. 7. THE SARPANCH, GOKIVADA GRAM PANCHAYAT., PITHAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533450. 8. GANIPIREDDY GANGA BABU, S/O VEERA BABU, 56 YEARS. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O GOKIVADA VILLAGE, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533450. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents a) in entering the petitioner's land in Survey No. 135 of Gokivada Village, Pithapuram Mandal, Kakinada District, laying drainage pipeline and attempting to lay road without acquisition and compensation as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, b) direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's land to its original condition, c) restrain the respondents from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession of the lands, and 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 direct the respondents not to proceed further in respect of the petitioners land in Survey No. 135 of Gokivada Village, Pithapuram Mandal, Kakinada District in laying the Drinage Pipe Line and road pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of order dated 05.03.2026 passed in WP No.6331 of 2026 and pass IA NO: 3 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 to vacate the interim order dated 05.03.2026 passed in WP No.6331 of 2026 by permitting the respondents to complete the remaining work of underground drainage and CC road in the interest of public health and welfare and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. V SAI KUMAR The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala Learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar Learned Assistant Government Leader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5; Ms. P. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.3, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No. 6 in interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of land in survey No.135 of Gokivada Village, Pitapalamandal, Katinada District, and attempting to lay drainage pipeline and road in their land, without following the due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. An Interim Order was passed on 05.03.2026 directing respondent No. 6 not to interfere with land of an extent of Ac.00-0.4190 cents in old survey No.135, L.P.No.1032, Gokivada Village, Pithapuram Mandal, Kakinada District, belonging to petitioner No.1, without following due process of law. 4. Respondent No. 7 filed a counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition. It was contented, inter alia, that the District Collector sanctioned an amount of ₹ 40,00,000/- by proceedings RC No. D1-11-EGS-ADMNSAN- DWMA-2025, dated 17.02.2026 for laying CC Road and underground drainage from Anganwadi School Center to Vantha (Yeleru Drain), covering an extent of 290 metres and approximately 30% of the work was completed. The land admeasuring Ac.00-0.4190 cents in old survey No.135, L.P.No.1032, Gokivada Village, Pithapuram Mandal, Kakinada District, belonging to petitioner No.1, is situated far away from the location where, the underground pipeline and CC road are being laid. Petitioner No. 2 does not possess any land in survey No.134. The owners, whose lands are situated along the clay (Matti) Road in Survey No.135, gave their consent for the work. Respondents are not laying road in the aforementioned land. The suit O.S.No.207 of 2025 filed by respondent No.8, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, against the petitioners and others, is pending. Petitioners came to the court by suppressing the facts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, would submit that given the averments of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.7, that respondent No.6 is not interfering with the subject land, no further adjudication, is required in this writ petition. 6. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 31.03.2026 IKN