APHC010277712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.840 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-40 [3584] Jangala Sreerama Murthy ...Appellant Vs. Durga Poultry Farm and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Sri M. Kesava Rao Advocate for Respondents : Sri Rizwan Ali Shaik (R-1), learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (R-2 & R-3), learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare (R-5), Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Bharanikam Gram Panchayat (R-6), Sri A. Rajendra Babu (R-7 to R-10). CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th July 2026 LISA GILL, CJ. Prayer in this Writ Appeal is for setting aside of order in Writ Petition No.15322 of 2025 dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned Single Bench whereby writ petition filed by respondent No.1/writ petitioner was disposed of. 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.840 of 2026 2. W.P.No.15322 of 2025 was filed by respondent No.1/writ petitioner seeking to set aside proceedings vide Rc.No.33/D/2025, dated 18.06.2025 whereby, permission for construction of poultry farm has been cancelled and respondent No.4 in writ petition (respondent No.5 in present appeal) had revoked ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued on 18.02.2025. 3. Stand taken by respondent No.4 in writ petition was that cancellation was based upon a number of complaints received from residents of adjacent villages raising objections to establishment of poultry farm on the ground that their villages are situated within 500 meters of subject site. Learned Single Bench directed District Collector, Anakapalli District to constitute a committee of Mandal Revenue Officers for purpose of ascertaining distance between proposed poultry farm and nearby villages i.e., Bharanikam Village of Paravada Mandal, Kattavanipalem Village (Hamlet of Bharanikam Village) of Paravada Mandal and Rajupeta Agraharam of Munagapaka Mandal. In compliance thereto, a Committee was formed by District Collector, Anakapalli comprising of Tahsildar, Paravada and Tahsildar, Munagapaka. Joint inspection of subject land was conducted along with Mandal Surveyors of Paravada and Munagapaka Villages, Village Revenue Officers and Village Surveyors of Bharanikam and Rajupeta Agraharam Villages. It was reported that poultry farm is beyond 500 meters from villages namely Bharanikam Village of Paravada Mandal, Kattavanipalem Village (Hamlet of Bharanikam 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.840 of 2026 Village) of Paravada Mandal and Rajupeta Agraharam of Munagapaka Mandal. 4. Petitioner, at that stage, had given an undertaking that he would not rear more than 5,000 birds in said poultry farm. 5. Recording the same, learned Single Bench disposed of writ petition by setting aside proceedings of revocation of ‘No Objection Certificate’. It is specifically recorded that subject land is not within 300 meters of surrounding villages and is beyond 500 meters. It further noted the undertaking submitted by writ petitioner that he would not keep more than 5,000 birds in his poultry farm without consent of concerned authorities. Aggrieved thereof, present appeal is filed by respondent No.10 in writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for appellant argues that report of District Collector dated nil.08.2025 is incorrect as distance between poultry farm and residential area has not been correctly measured by concerned authorities. Furthermore, writ petitioner has, as of now, kept more than 5,000 birds in violation of undertaking given by him. Thus, prays that this appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner opposes contention of appellant while supporting impugned order dated 28.08.2025. It is further informed that more than 5,000 birds are now being kept after having obtained 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.840 of 2026 due permission from A.P. State Pollution Control Board and writ petitioner had obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent for Operate (CTO), thereby entitling him to rear more than 5,000 birds. 8. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file, however, we do not find any ground to cause interference in this matter. At the outset, it is to be noted that appellant has not even filed, along with this appeal, Report of District Collector, Anakapalli dated nil.08.2025, which was submitted in compliance of orders passed by learned writ Court. Copy of said report along with annexures i.e., location, sketch showing poultry farm has been presented in Court today by learned counsel for respondent No.1. The same is taken on record subject to just exceptions. 9. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any material on record to indicate that said report filed by District Collector, Anakapalli is opposed to factual aspect. 10. Insofar as question of keeping more than 5,000 birds by writ petitioner is concerned, it is the writ petitioner’s specific case that Consent to Establish and Consent for Operate have been first obtained from State Pollution Control Board and only then, the number of birds has been increased. 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.840 of 2026 11. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, we do not find any ground to cause interference in this matter. No infirmity or illegality has been pointed out in impugned order. 12. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. However, it is clarified that in case any discrepancy or violation of permissions granted to writ petitioner is found by authorities, necessary action would be taken in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.840 of 2026 92 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL No.840 of 2026 Dt:13.07.2026 AMD