1 APHC010369842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 19744 OF 2026 Between: 1. T.KESAVENI, W/o Ramachandra Rao, aged 69 years, R/o D.No. 8-62, Kesavapuram, Tallarevu village and Mandal, Kakinada District - 533463 ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Secretariat buildings, Velgapudi, Guntur - 522238 2. The District Collector, Kakinada District (erstwhile East Godavari) Kakinada - 533001 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada District (erstwhile East Godavari) Kakinada - 533003 4. The Tahsildar, Tallarevu Mandal, Kakinada District. - 533463 2 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Tallarevu Mandal, Kakinada District - 53346 6. Tallarevu Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Panchayat secretary Tallarevu Mandal, Kakinada District - 533463. . 7. The Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Kakinada-533001 ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents:Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19744 OF 2026 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…..pleased to issue Writ, direction, order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the actions of respondents in high handedly constructing a drainage and laying road in land of petitioner of extent Ac.0.08 cents in Sy No 357/1A. Tallarevu village & Mandal Kakinada District, as illegal, arbitrary high handed and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of petitioner land of extent Ac.0.08 cents in Sy.No.357/1A, Tallarevu village & Mandal Kakinada District by constructing drain or laying road and further direct the respondents to remove the structures that were raised by the respondent No.6 in the land of the petitioner after assessing the damages caused by making it clear that the respondent shall not interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the private individual without following the procedure contemplated and pass ….” 2. Case of the petitioner is that she is the lawful owner and possessor of Ac.0.08 cents in Sy.No.357/1A, Tallarevu Village and Mandal, Kakinada District, which devolved upon her from 4 her mother. Her mother had purchased the said land under a registered sale deed from one Brahmaiah Naidu, who had earlier filed O.S.No.269 of 1967 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kakinada, against the Gram Panchayat and obtained a decree of permanent injunction. 3. Earlier, when 6th respondent–Tallarevu Gram Panchayat attempted to construct an RO water plant in the petitioner's land, she approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2359 of 2015. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, this Court, by order dated 06.02.2015, granted an interim order restraining the Gram Panchayat and the other authorities from carrying out any construction activity, and the said interim order continues to remain in force. Subsequently, when the Gram Panchayat failed to remove a shop constructed by encroaching upon the footpath and a portion of the petitioner's land, she filed W.P.No.25682 of 2020 before this Court. By order dated 07.03.2022, this Court directed the Gram Panchayat to take necessary steps to remove the encroachment. As the Gram Panchayat failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner 5 initiated contempt proceedings vide Contempt Case No.2181 of 2022, which was closed upon implementation of the directions issued by this Court. 4. While the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2359 of 2015 were still in force, 6th respondent–Gram Panchayat commenced construction of a drainage channel through the petitioner's land. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.03.2026 to 2nd respondent–District Collector, who forwarded the same to 3rd respondent–District Panchayat Officer. Upon learning that 7th respondent–Superintending Engineer was also concerned with the proposed work, she submitted a separate representation to him. Thereafter, on 06.03.2026, she submitted further representations to respondents 4 and 6. However, no action was taken on any of the representations. On 12.06.2026, the respondent authorities, with the aid of heavy machinery, entered the petitioner's land and cut down two coconut trees standing therein. Despite being fully aware of the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondent authorities continued with 6 the work. The petitioner thereafter submitted another representation dated 06.07.2026 to the 2nd respondent through the Public Grievance Redressal System seeking removal of the unauthorized structures. It is the petitioner's specific contention that, without initiating land acquisition proceedings under Section 59 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, 6th respondent has no authority to interfere with her private land or to construct a drainage channel therein. It is further contended that the respondent authorities neither issued any notice nor afforded her an opportunity of hearing before commencing the work. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for 6th respondent, on instructions, submitted that the drainage canal is being laid in Sy.No.359/2 and not in Sy.No.357/1A, which belongs to the petitioner. 6. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities cut down two coconut trees standing in her land, leading her to apprehend that they intended to construct the drainage canal through her property. However, merely because two trees 7 standing in the petitioner's land were cut down, it cannot automatically be concluded that the drainage canal is being constructed in the said land. In the present case, the respondent authorities have categorically stated in their written instructions that the drainage work is being carried out in Sy.No.359/2 and not in Sy.No.357/1A belonging to the petitioner. In view of the said categorical stand, the cause of action for adjudication of the Writ Petition no longer survives. 7. Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date: 20.07.2026. PAB 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19744 OF 2026 DATE: 20.07.2026 PAB