APHC010644502018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 31004/2018 Between: 1. KURUVA SRIRAMULU, S/O. ANJINAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, H.NO. 4-32, MULLA VEEDI, BYLUPPALA VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GONEGANDLA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. SRI B THIMMAPPA, S/O. GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BYLUPPALA VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. B VENKATESH, S/O. GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BYLUPPALA VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. B NAGESH, S/O. GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BYLUPPALA VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 7. K RANGAMUNI, S/O. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 2 JS,J W.P.No.31004/2018 AGRICULTURIST, BYLUPPALA VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 8. K BALAMUNI, S/O. RAMANJAYEULU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BYLUPPALA VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 9. K MALLESH, S/O. KESAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BYLUPPALA VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDUMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing endorsement dated 03.06.2018 in R.C.B. 497/2018 and providing rasta to the respondents No. 4 to 9 through petitioner's land in Sy.No. 342/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.81 cents Sy.No. 342/2 to an extent of Ac. 0.96 cents in total Ac. 1.77 cents situated a Byluppala Village, Goengandla Mandal, Kurnool District Oas illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted and violative of Art. 14 and 300A of the constitution of India and Consequently set aside the impugned endorsement dated 03.06.2018 in R.C.B. 497/2018 issued by the 3rd respondent of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 grant INTERIM SUSPENSION of endorsement dated.03.06.2018 in R.C.B. 497/2018 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of WP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3 JS,J W.P.No.31004/2018 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and in land to an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.342/1, Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.342/2 in total, petitioner is in possession of Ac.1.44 cents situated at Byluppala Village, Goengandla Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner contends that while there is a public road leading from Byluppala to Basavanuru village on southern side of petitioner’s land. The respondent Nos.4 to 9 are illegally passing through the petitioner’s agricultural land and damaging crops rather than using the alternate path. Upon a representation made by the petitioner the MRI/respondent No.3 initially submitted a report and issued endorsement dated 04.04.2018 directing the petitioner and unofficial respondent to approach the competent civil Court to settle their dispute. However the same respondent subsequently issued the impugned endorsement dated 03.06.2018 directing the petitioner not to obstruct respondent Nos.4 to 9 from passing through the subject land. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that there is an amicable Rastha used for the passage of bullock carts through the petitioner’s land which justified the issuance of the endorsement dated 03.06.2018. 4. The primary issue for consideration is whether respondent No.3, having already directed the parties to approach the civil Court, could subsequently issue a contradictory order on the same subject matter. 5. This Court finds that the revenue authority, after initially relegating the parties to a civil remedy, exceeded its jurisdiction by later permitting the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 9 to pass through the petitioner’s private land. 6. The revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon rights of easement or disputed paths; such matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil 4 JS,J W.P.No.31004/2018 Court. Consequently, the endorsement dated 03.06.2018 is legally unsustainable. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 03.06.2018. The petitioner and the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 9 are directed to approach the competent civil Court to establish their respective rights and entitlements regarding the right of way. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 09.02.2026 RSD 5 JS,J W.P.No.31004/2018 132 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 31004/2018 Dated: 09.02.2026 RSD