Neeruganti Suryanarayana Vs the State of Ap

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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide Rc.32/2024/C, Dt. 28.05.2025 and further action of the 4th respondent in trying to demolish the structure existing in Plot No. 286 and 287 situated in

¶19

2

¶20

Sy.No. 826, 1190-1 and 3 at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and consequently set aside the above said impugned notice and pass

¶21

IA 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 pleased to direct structure existing in Plot No. 286 and the 4th respondent not to demolish the 287 situated in Sy.No. 826, 1190-1 and 1190-3 at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District by suspending the impugned notice vide Rc.No. 32/2024/C, Dt. 28.05.2025 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶24

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 pleased to implead the Petitioner/Proposed respondent herein as party respondent No. 5 as proper and necessary parties to the Writ Petition No.14186/2025 and I.A.No. 01/2025 and to pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.P NARASIMHULU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. No representation in implead application.

¶32

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide Rc.32/2024/C, dated 28.05.2025 and further action of the 4^th respondent in trying to demolish the structure existing in Plot Nos.286 and 287 situated in Sy.Nos.826, 1190-1 & 3 at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶33

According to the impugned eviction notice of the 4^th respondent dated 28.05.2025 it is alleged that the petitioner encroached upon Plot No.478 in Sy.Nos.826, 1190-1 & 3 of Gunjepalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District by raising compound wall with measurement i.e., East-West 8 Mtrs & North-South 10 Mtrs and as such the petitioner was asked to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted explanation dated 31.05.2025 but the same is not considered. That apart, the 4^th respondent is trying to demolish the compound wall highhandedly without following the due procedure.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 4^th respondent dated

¶36

4

¶37

16.04.2026 submits that the 4^th respondent and other respondents have not taken any steps on the writ petitioner’s land in plot Nos.286 & 287 situated in Sy.No.826 & 1190-1 & 3 of Mudigubba Village. However, as there is an alleged encroachment in Plot No.478, the explanation of the petitioner would be considered by the 4^th respondent following the due procedure.

¶38

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit his additional explanation if any enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim to the above said notice of the 4^th respondent dated 28.05.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such additional explanation from the petitioner, the 4^th respondent shall proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said notice of the 4^th respondent dated 28.05.2025 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and others concerned, upon verification of the records and the subject land/ plot appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Pending enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject plot and the alleged encroachment as detailed in the schedule land of the notice of the 4^th respondent dated 28.05.2025.

¶39

5

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The written instructions of the 4^th respondent dated 16.04.2026 shall be made as part of the court record. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 16.04.2026 NNN

Neeruganti Suryanarayana v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeruganti Suryanarayana v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ns Educational Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Subramanyam Naidu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bethi Pedda Pullaiah Vs the State of Ap

Uppala Audi Lakshmamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vakati. Vijayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gopavarapu Pavan Kumar Vs the State of Ap