Disposed¶36

Yenimireddy Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026WP/18033/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Survey notice challenge; Kandukur Municipality; re-survey despite earlier Mandal Surveyor endorsement dated 30.07.2025; demarcation of properties as per title documents; disposal at admission stage; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14 and 21; pending injunction suits between parties; no costs; Prakasam District; Justice Harinath.N.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of at the admission stage permitting the 2nd respondent to complete the survey by issuing appropriate notices to all concerned; parties at liberty to submit title documents for demarcation of the properties; no order as to costs. ¶36

Yenimireddy Venkata Reddy Vs State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 2nd respondent (Kandukur Municipality) in issuing notice dated 22.06.2026 in Roc.No.l630/2023/Gl for survey of the petitioner's house and site property, despite an earlier survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor with endorsement/report dated 30.07.2025, is illegal, irregular and without authority of law, warranting setting aside of the impugned notice.

¶20

Court's answer

Disposing of the writ petition at the admission stage, the Court permitted the 2nd respondent to complete the survey by issuing appropriate notices to all concerned, with the petitioner and other concerned parties at liberty to submit their title documents, on the basis of which the 2nd respondent was to conduct the survey and demarcate the properties.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.

¶36

Key takeaways

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a survey notice dated 22.06.2026 in Roc.No.l630/2023/Gl issued by the Kandukur Municipality requiring the petitioner to attend a proposed survey of his house and site property (Door Number 2-1-66, Survey No.865/lA/2Al, Kandukur Town), notwithstanding that a survey had already been conducted by the Mandal Surveyor with endorsement dated 30.07.2025, while the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were contesting injunction suits against each other. Disposing of the petition at the admission stage, the High Court (Harinath.N, J.) did not set aside the impugned notice; it permitted the Municipality to complete the survey after issuing appropriate notices to all concerned, leaving the petitioner and other parties liberty to submit their title documents, on the basis of which the survey and demarcation of properties were to be carried out. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

[3457]

¶2

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2026 Date of uploading :

¶3

APHC010338302026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 18033/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

YENIMIREDDY VENKATA REDDY, S/O.MASTAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.20-1-66, KALIDASU VARI VEEDHI, KANDUKUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523101.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN- DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237.

¶15

THE KANDUKUR MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, KANDUKUR TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT523101.

¶16

CHALLA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. KALIDASUVARI VEEDHI

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd

¶19

¶20

respondent in issuing notice dated 22.06.2026 in Roc.No.l630/2023/Gl for the survey of my house and site property for an extent of 42 and half ankams in Door Number 2-1-66 in Survey No.865/lA/2Al of Kandukur Town in spite of survey was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor,kandukuru vide its endorsement dated 30.07.2025, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the notice impugned notice dated 22.06.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 grant stay of operation of the impugned notice dated 22.06.2026 in Roc.No.l630/2023/Gl issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of main writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

Order:-

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the notice dated 22.06.2026 by the respondent Corporation calling upon the petitioner to attend the proposed survey, which is to be conducted on 09.07.2026.

¶31

It is submitted that the petitioner and the 3^rd espondent are contesting civil suits filed by either party and that the suits are filed for injunction. It is submitted that the survey was once conducted by the Mandal Surveyor and a report to that effect was also issued by the Surveyor on 30.07.2025. It is submitted that the proposed survey is only to harass the petitioner and that the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are contesting civil suits and that it would be appropriate for the trial Court to direct the conduct of the survey by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, on receipt of written instructions, submits that the 2^nd respondent has received a legal notice from one K. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate, and denied to conduct the survey in the subject land and requested further 15 days' time to appear with the relevant documents. Considering the representation from the petitioner's side, a fresh notice dated 01.07.2026 was issued to conduct the survey on 09.07.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner's representation was already considered and 15 days' time was granted for conducting the fresh survey.

¶33

¶34

Considering the submissions, this writ petition can be disposed of at the

¶35

admission stage, permitting the 2^nd respondent to complete the survey by issuing appropriate notices to all concerned, and the petitioner and the other concerned parties are at liberty to submit their title documents for the 2^nd respondent to conduct the survey and demarcate the properties as per the title documents furnished by the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent.

¶36