APHC010323812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17195/2024 Between: 1. KARRI BHASKAR RAO, S/O. APPA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O PALLAPU STREET, UMMALADA VILLAGE, MUNAGAPAKAMANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI, A.P. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ANAKAPALLI STATION, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. 2 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HEAD QUARTER SUB- DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. 8. KANDREGULA JAGANNADHA RAO, S/O. APPA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC REAL ESTATE AND CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 15-12-3 GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. 9. KANDREGULA RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/O. CHINNA RAMA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. BY-PASS ROAD, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. ...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 8 and 9 in preventing me from construction of C.C. drain for the Anakapalli South-1, Lakshmidevi Kaluva/Sluice in Survey No.767/1 in an extent of Ac.0-07 cents of land of Anakapalli Village and Mandal, Anakapalli District as bad, illegal, arbitrary and capricious under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct respondents 2 to 7 to stop the illegal activity of R8 and R9 in my constructing Lakshmidevi Kaluva in Sy.No. 767/1 in an extent of Ac.0-07 cents of land of Anakapalli South-1, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District on the file of this Honble Court and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 R8 and R9 not to interfere in Government Construction work of Lakshmidevi Kaluva Sy.No.767/1, in an extent of 0- 07 cents of land of Anakapalli south-l, Anakapalli Village, and Mandal, Anakapalli District, A.P., pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: To declare the action of respondent Nos.8 and 9 in preventing the petitioner from construction of C.C. drain for Anakapalli South-I, Lakshmidevi Kaluva/Sluice in Sy.No.767/1, to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents of land situated in Anakapalli Village and Mandal, Anakapalli District as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Satish Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation for the respondent Nos.1 to 7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.8 and 9 are preventing the petitioner from construction of the C.C. drain in the subject land without any authority and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders in one voice contended that they are no way concerned with the subject matter and that the dispute is between private parties, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of 5 disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. 7. The High Court cannot allow the constitution jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes between private parties, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. 8. In the present case, the dispute is between private parties and no statutory violation is made out, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 26th February, 2026 JLV 6 177 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17195/2024 7 Date: 26th February, 2026 JLV