APHC010171662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8960/2025 Between: 1. ALLURI NITHIN VENKATA SUBBA RAJU, S/O ALLURI MURALI KRISHNAM RAJU AGED 22 YRS, OCCUPATION R/O.D.NO- 2-99 , PALAKODERU VILLAGE AND MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT .ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM TOWN AND MANDAL, AP 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CI RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM .WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, WESTERN DIVISION, SETTIPETA VILLAGE. NIDADAVOLE MANDAL.WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 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 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8960/2025 ALLURI NITHIN VENKATA SUBBA RAJU, S/O ALLURI MURALI KRISHNAM RAJU AGED 22 YRS, OCCUPATION- CULTIVATION, 99 , PALAKODERU VILLAGE AND MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT .ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM TOWN AND MANDAL, AP THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM .WEST GODAVARI THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, WESTERN DIVISION, SETTIPETA VILLAGE. NIDADAVOLE MANDAL.WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI ...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 RC,J W.P.NO.8960 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ALLURI NITHIN VENKATA SUBBA RAJU, S/O ALLURI MURALI CULTIVATION, 99 , PALAKODERU VILLAGE AND MANDAL WEST ...PETITIONER PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM .WEST GODAVARI THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, WESTERN DIVISION, SETTIPETA VILLAGE. NIDADAVOLE MANDAL.WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP ER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI ...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 RC,J W.P.NO.8960 of 2025 2 pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondents in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by attempting to remove 20 coconut trees and 10 palm trees located on the northern bund of the land, measuring single contiguous plot comprising R.S. No. 68/1C, R.S. No. 68/ID, and R.S. No. 68/IE, situated in Vissakoderu village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and it also violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents to refrain from removing 20 coconut trees and 10 palm trees located on the northern bund of the land, measuring single contiguous plot comprising R.S. No. 68/1C, R.S. No. 68/ID, and R.S. No. 68/IE, situated in Vissakoderu village, Palakoderumandal. West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to refrain from removing 20 coconut trees and 10 palm trees located on the northern bund of the land, measuring single contiguous plot comprising R.S. No. 68/1C, R.S. No. 68/ID, and R.S. No. 68/IE, situated in Vissakoderu village, Palakoderumandal. West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 vacate the interim order Dated: 08.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8960 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.NO.8960 of 2025 3 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent no.4 in interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and attempting to remove 20 coconut trees and 10 palm trees located on the northern bund of the land, a contiguous plot, situated in R.S.Nos.68/1C, 1D & 1E of Vissakoderu Village, Palakoduru Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Heard Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 3. The petitioner is claiming that the coconut trees exist in his private land. But in the counter affidavit, it is the specific contention of the respondent authorities that the subject trees are situated on the left bank of Gostanadi Channel of G&V Canal, Godavari Western Delta but not in the petitioner’s land. 4. Therefore, there is a dispute regarding location of the trees whether they exist in the petitioner’s land or on the left bank of Gostanadi Channel. 5. Writ Court generally does not resolve hotly disputed questions of fact that require elaborate evidence, oral testimony, and detailed scrutiny, especially when the material on record is insufficient to arrive at a clear finding. RC,J W.P.NO.8960 of 2025 4 6. The material placed on record is not sufficient to arrive at a clear finding regarding location of the subject trees. Therefore, the petitioner is relegated to the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. . Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR