APHC010395042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 21711/2026 Between: 1. D YAMUNA KRISHNA, S/O D. RAMU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.7-17/1, DHANALAKSHMI NAGAR, AVILALA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517507. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522239. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI DIVISION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517507. 5. SRI HATHIRAMJI MUTT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. 6. SRI KARUNAKARA REDDY, S/O RAJAGOPAL REDDY, R/O AVILALA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.517501 7. SRI JAGADEESH REDDY, S/O RAJGOPAL REDDY, R/O AVILALA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.517501 ...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 toissue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the endorsement in PGRS No.TPT202512299110 dated 10.04.2026, refusing to consider the petitioner's grievance relating to illegal encroachment and protection of possession over the schedule property covered by Registered Document No.2644 of 2018, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently sefaside the said endorsement and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's grievance afresh after conducting a proper enquiry, protect the petitioner's peaceful possession over the schedule property from illegal interference by Respondent Nos.6 and 7 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of the endorsement in PGRS No.TPT202512299 110 dated 10.04.2026 and consequently direct Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to protect the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by restraining Respondent Nos.6 and 7 from interfering with the same, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. Assailing the endorsement vide PGRS No.TPT20251229110, dated 10.04.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased house site in Avilala village, Tirupati Rural Mandal under a registered document No.2644 of 2018. The petitioner intended to construct a residential house; however, the respondents 6 and 7 started interfering with the property. The petitioner gave a complaint through PGRS requesting the authority to remove the encroachment. The 4th respondent conducted an enquiry and thereafter issued the impugned endorsement. He would also submit that 4th respondent should have removed the encroachment made by the respondents 6 and 7, instead issued Ex.P1 endorsement. 4. Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4, would submit that the 4th respondent is not the competent authority to remove the encroachment allegedly made by the respondents 6 and 7. He would also submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner on one side and the respondents 6 and 7 on the other. The 4th respondent is not the competent authority in respect of property disputes. 5. Thus, as seen from Ex.P1 endorsement, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued the said endorsement, wherein it was stated that an extent of Ac.13.74 cents in S.No.17/3 belonged to Hathiramji Mutt. As per the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments dated 07.11.2025, 50% of the land in S.Nos.13, 15, 17/2, 17/3 and 17/5 of Avilala village, would be allotted to the Kochi family. Since the land belonged to Hathiramji Mutt, the petitioner was informed that no further action would be initiated. 6. Thus, the instructions would manifest property disputes between the petitioner on one side and the respondents 6 and 7 on the other. The 4th respondent is not the competent authority to decide the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 6 & 7. The petitioner shall have to approach the competent civil Court to resolve the property disputes. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned endorsement. That apart, the endorsement issued by the authority in the PGRS does not have any statutory flavour to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, at this stage this court is not going into those aspects. In a given case, this court will examine that issue. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, and it is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD