Uppalapati Krishnam Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010069732025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3765 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Uppalapati Krishnam Raju, S/o. U. Ramaraju Aged about 64 years, Occ; Rtd. BSNL Employee, R/o. D.No. 7-227-2/1,9th line, Sujatha Nagar, Opp to Police Quarters, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam^District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal Prakasam^District.

¶15

The Mandal Surveyor, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam^District.

¶16

The Pernamitta Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Secretary, Pernamitta, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not laying the Cart Track in Sy.No. 579 of Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapad u Mandal,

¶19

/

¶20

Prakasam District in spite of survey conducted on 23.11.2024 for fixing the boundaries as illegal, arbitrary and against to Law and consequently direct the Respondents to lay a Cart Track in Sy.No. 579 of Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 direct the Respondents to lay a Cart Track in Sy.No. 579 of Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK MEERAVALI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P A OB, o. ^ YADAV REPRESENTING SRI SUDHIR MATTEGUNTA (SC FOR ZPPS, MPPS & GP)

¶26

The Court made the following order:

■>

%

APHC010069732025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 3765 OF 2025

¶36

Between:

¶37

UPPALAPATI KRISHNAM RAJU, S/o. U. Ramaraju Aged about 64 years, Occ. Rtd. BSNL Employee, R/o. D.No. 7-227-2/1, 9th line, Sujatha Nagar! Opp to Police Quarters, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶38

...Petitioner

¶39

AND

¶40

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶41

The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶42

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam^District.

¶43

The Tahsildar, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal Prakasam District.

¶44

The Mandal Surveyor, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶45

The Pernamitta Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Secretary, Pernamitta, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶46

...Respondents

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner: SHAIK MEERAVALI

¶48

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents:SUDHIR MATTEGUNTA

¶49

2

¶50

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶51

Heard Sri Shaik Meeravali, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner; Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government - Pleader for Revenue and Sri P.A.K. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Sudheer learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for Respondeni No.6.

¶52

Sn T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted the Written Instruction dated 26.04.2025 along with Endorsement furnished by the Tahsildar, dated 25.04.2025, which is in Telugu vernacular. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has filed the English translation of the said Endorsement dated 25.04.2025. Relevant portion of the Endorsement is usefully extracted hereunder;

¶53

“The said application has been investigated by the concerned illage Revenue Officer and a report has been submitted The Kajus father Rama Raju, in the village revenue area named Su^ey No.579, which is registered as Donka Poramboku^inRSR It IS also registered as Donka in web land. In the DK register of this m San4V2 "dt P--Mnnn H ^ recorded as Cancel I^rfu-OH r? ? ^ '■oad has been constructed at the Ra^u^aftp? wh'^’h^° applicant Uppalapati Krishnam rpTpinIn n ^ cultivation and the rema ning Donka has been connected with a gravel road to the Ongole-Kurnool road and the black tap road from Hill City to 'll farmers on both sides of the Donka about the Donka, we were told that this Donka existed from the past and should remain as a Donka at present. All the armers agreed that the Donka had not been made with gravel and that the remaining land would also be made as a Donka Some P®? n t^® evidence that we have been cultivating in^the SL ® D°^ka conversion, thct 1 w^4® ®^°''®’ ^^'■''^g fhe investigation that this detour is useful for all the farmers in the village for W p7o crops and that the case W.P.No.3765/2025 is pending in the Hon'ble High Court on the said Survey No. 579 and further action can be taken after the court orders are received, the said report has been submitted.” 3. The above extract would indicate that there is existing cart-track, which seems to have been encroached by some of the Villagers to some

¶54

3

¶55

extent. The Written Instruction would indicate that the survey has already been conducted and the cart-track has been demarcated by identifying the encroached portions. The Written Instruction would^{alsoindicatethatthecart-} track is used by several farmers.

¶56

In view of the above instructions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, at the admission stage, without going into merits, directing the Official Respondents to remove the encroachments^fromthecart- track and improve the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶57