Dismissed

V. Sheshaiah, Anantapur Dist. v. the Govt.of a.P.,M.a.,Hyd.,& 2 Otrs.

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Apr 2026WP/11563/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed against the Hindupur Municipality and the government representing the petitioner, and the third respondent for allegedly encroaching on a public road and constructing a compound wall, owing to lack of proof by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

V. Sheshaiah, Anantapur Dist. Vs the Govt.of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3328]

¶2

APHC010180682014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 11563/2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

V. SHESHAIAH, ANANTAPUR DIST., D.NO.27-8-569/ 1, ARVIND NAGAR, MUDDIREDDYPALLI, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE GOVT OF A P M A HYD 2 OTRS, , REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, HYDERABAD

¶14

THE HINDUPUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

¶15

C JALA JAKSHI W/O SUDARSHAN REDDY, SADASHIVANAGAR,HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.INENI VENKATA PRASAD

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.S SUBBA REDDY

¶21

2.GUDAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA

¶22

3.MD SALEEM (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR)

¶23

¶24

4.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

¶25

5.N RANGA REDDY (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORAL ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri I. Venkata Prasad, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities.

¶29

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶30

“For the reasons sated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondents not to take any action against the 3^rd respondent encroached 5 feet and laying compound wall on the public road is highly illegal and ultravirous to the constitution of India and is vitiated and quite consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to stop the construction by removing compound wall and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case as this Hon‟ble court Deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶31

Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner of Hindupur Municipality, dated 06.04.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record.

¶32

The Hindupur Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, has filed Counter-Affidavit on 29.08.2023. Para 6 of the said Counter-Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶33

“ 6. The 2^nd Respondent submits that in allegation made by the petitioner in 5 & 6 is not correct. It is submitted that the 3 respondent has obtain the permission for proposed construction of residential building in place of old house bearing D.No.26-4-628 (old), New 26-4-2797 (New) from the 3" respondent vide in B.A.No. 106/2013/G2, dt. 02.01.2014. After receiving the representation of the petitioner, the 2

¶34

¶35

respondent made an enquiry before the petitioner and found that the 3" respondent has not constructed compound wall on the 20 „ - 0 “ wide road marzine. The petitioner has not furnished any authorized documents pertaining to the 20-0" wide road or to his plot. The petitioners itself purchased the house site plot i.e. Plot No. 295 is situated in un approved Layout. The said 20-0" road shall be handed over to the Hindupur Municipality before selling of plots by the land owner. Hence, the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble High Court with molafied intension to create the civil dispute, between the public It is further prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as the prima facia of the case is in favor of the 2 respondent.”

¶36

The Counter-Affidavit as well as the Written Instructions would categorically state that the allegations made by the Petitioner are factually incorrect. The above extract of the Counter-Affidavit would also indicate that the Petitioner has not furnished any documents to prove that the 3^rd Respondent has encroached 5 feet, and that the Petitioner has approached this Court with a mala fide intention.

¶37

Having noted the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶39

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶40

_________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 06.04.2026 DSV

158

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO: 11563/2014

06.04.2026

DSV

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

¶50

MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 11563/2014

¶51

PROCEEDING SHEET

¶52

Sl. No	DATE	ORDER	Office Note
	06.04.2026	GRKP, J
		I.A.No.1 of 2023 Having regard the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of this Application, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Application. 2. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is allowed. Counter-Affidavit is taken on record.
		____________ GRKP, J
		WRIT PETITION NO: 11563/2014
		Writ Petition is dismissed. (vide separate order)
		___________ GRKP, J DSV

¶53

V. Sheshaiah, Anantapur Dist. v. the Govt.of a.P.,M.a.,Hyd.,& 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Sheshaiah, Anantapur Dist. v. the Govt.of a.P.,M.a.,Hyd.,& 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kamini Sreenu Vs Sri Daivaadeenam

Marella Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vajrapu Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dandu Sridevi Vs Dr. Samrajya Lakshmi

M/s Urvasi Restaurant and Bar, Narasapuram, Vs Smt P.M.Satyaveni

Nandipati Chiranjeevi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh