APHC010113092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 258 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-24 [3584] Muttabattula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana ...Appellant Vs. The State of AP and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 3rd September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: RAYUDU VENKATA RAMANA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, GP FOR REVENUE, Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Unsuccessful writ petitioner preferred present intra-court appeal challenging order dated 16.02.2026 in W.P.No.2220 of 2025, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The appellant/writ petitioner filed writ petition questioning the action of 5th respondent in interfering with appellant's property 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.258 of 2026 admeasuring Acres 0.03 cents in R.S. No.25/11, bearing Door No.3-22 of Gunnepalli Agraharam Grama Panchayath, Amalapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, without issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. (a) It is his pleaded case that father of appellant was assigned an extent of Acres 0.03 cents in aforesaid survey number. House was constructed over the said extent of land and appellant's father was residing therein. After demise of appellant's father in the year 2013, appellant has been residing in the said property. (b) That being so, the 5th respondent tried to enter appellant's private property and started digging large pit-holes for the purpose of building an overhead tank. The same was resisted, however, as the 5th respondent, with its official machinery, proceeded with the construction, appellant chose to file the present writ petition. The complaint of appellant in the writ petition was that, on account of construction of overhead tank, he would be deprived of ingress and egress to the residential property. The learned Single Judge initially passed interim order dated 27.01.2025 and later extended the same from time to time. (c) The 5th respondent filed counter inter alia pleading that in Grama Sabha conducted on 28.10.2024, resolution was passed to 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.258 of 2026 construct water tank in Survey No.25/11, under Jala Jeevan Mission, sponsored by Central Government for the purpose of providing drinking water to the residents of the village, thus, the 5th respondent proceeded to construct the overhead tank and that the same in no manner would obstruct the petitioner's ingress and egress, as there exists a road on northern side of his property, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. (d) The learned Single Judge, having considered the submissions made on either side and also perusing rough sketch of the locality as produced before the court, dismissed the writ petition. (e) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Sri Rayudu Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents. 4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contend that though 5th respondent passed resolution to construct water tank in Survey No.25/11, vide resolution No.16, on ground the construction is being made towards eastern side of the appellant's property, rather 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.258 of 2026 than northern side, which would deprive the appellant from having ingress and egress. Though this aspect was raised before learned Single Judge, by impugned judgment, the same was negatived. In order to demonstrate aforesaid aspect, learned counsel for appellant referred to the rough plan map filed along with memo dated 15.07.2026, in particular, the portion of property earmarked as 25 links wide road, to contend that the overhead tank is being constructed, affecting the ingress and egress to the appellant’s residential property. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for 5th respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the proposed water tank, since is situated on western side of appellant's house and a 30 links wide public road exists between appellant's property and the site of water tank, there cannot be any obstruction or interruption to access property of appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant's house has access both on eastern side as well as northern side. To buttress the same, our attention has been drawn to the site map and also Google Sketch, along with photographs filed along with comprehensive report dated 21.07.2026. 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.258 of 2026 6. We have gone through the material on record. It is undisputed that appellant's father was assigned an extent of Acres 0.03 cents for the purpose of constructing house, over which house already exists. Besides that, even as per the appellant, part of the southern side of the said house plot, which is vacant, is in illegal occupation of the appellant. That apart, part of the land on eastern side, earmarked for 30 links wide road, is in illegal occupation of appellant's brother, in which coconut trees are present. The proposed location earmarked for construction of overhead tank and the land assigned in favour of appellant’s father are bisected by 30 links wide road. 7. Though learned counsel for appellant tried to contend that the resolution of Grama Panchayat intended construction of overhead tank towards the northern side of the assigned plot, however on ground it is being constructed towards eastern side, when we have pointed out as to what prejudice the same would cause, learned counsel for appellant could not point out any harm or injury, much less affecting legal rights. Even according to appellant, he has encroached part of vacant land towards southern side and particularly on eastern side earmarked for road, therefore, in our considered view, appellant cannot claim to have suffered any 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.258 of 2026 prejudice or any of his rights affected. The learned Single Judge rightly found that no part of appellant's assigned plot was encroached in the process of construction of water tank. We therefore do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, this writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS