M. Venkatarama Lakshmi Devi, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

M. Venkatarama Lakshmi Devi, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed recording the submissions/consent of both counsel, including the respondents' stated undertaking to lay piped culverts and make arrangements without obstructing the petitioner's fields; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed. Merits not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the official respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in failing to take any action against the unofficial respondents on the petitioner's representations/complaints dated 15.11.2019 and 14.11.2019, concerning a road laid without permission or sanction to the east of her land (raising its height and width, damaging the bund/Gattu and causing stagnation of hill-runoff water in her fields), was improper.

Court's answer

Recording the submissions made by both learned counsel, the Court closed the writ petition with no order as to costs.

Ratio / Principle

Closure was effected on consent: the respondents made clear they will make necessary arrangements by laying piped culverts without obstructing the petitioner's field and sought closure, and the petitioner's counsel likewise consented to the statement being recorded.

Key takeaways

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Sumathi Jagadam, J.; decision dated 07.04.2026) disposed of W.P. No. 19228 of 2019, a petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against official respondents 2-6 for inaction on the petitioner's representations/complaints dated 14-15.11.2019 against private respondents (Nos. 6-10) alleged to be laying a road without permission or sanction (raised in height and width, approx. 160 m x 6 m x 8 m) to the east of her agricultural land in Kama Papaya Palli Village, Lingala Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa, threatening damage to the field bund (Gattu) and stagnation of water flowing from the hill top; the prayer invoked Articles 19 and 21. An interlocutory application (IA No. 1 of 2019, Section 151 CPC) had sought stay of the road-laying; on 06.12.2019 the Court had directed respondents 2-5 not to resort to laying road on the subject land. The Court noted the Tahsildar's counter affidavit recording the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department's proposal that any road in Nayanikunta be laid at a level lower than the petitioner's lands with piped culverts at the points where her field water flows into the kunta, ensuring no obstruction to her field drainage, together with the assurance that the Government would take no step damaging her interest. Both counsel consented to the recording of this statement and to closure; accordingly the writ petition was closed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. No adjudication on merits; no cases cited.

APHC010400992019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[2688]

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19228/2019

Between:

M. VENKATARAMA LAKSHMI DEVI,, W/O LATE M. SIVAPRASAD REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT KAMA PAPAYA PALLI VILLAGE, (VELIDANDLA MAJARA) LINGALA MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI. ANDHRA PRADESH.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , JAMMALA MADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

THE TAHSILDAR, LINGALA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

THE MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LINGALA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

KARNA NEELADHAR REDDY, S/O CHINNA KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

PEDDAMALLU MALLESHWAR REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

2

JS, J W.P.No.19228/2019

PEDDAMALLU MADHAN MOHAN REDDY, MALLESHWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

YERRA MEKALA ESHAWARUDU, S/O NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

YERRA MEKALA RAGHURAMUDU, S/O PEDDARANNULU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS (R6 TO R10 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF KAMA PAPAYA PALLI VILLAGE, (VELIDANDLA MAJARA) LINGALA MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the official respondents 2 to 6 in not taking any action against the unofficial respondents in pursuance to my representations and complaint dt 15-11-2019 and 14-112019 submitted by me ventilating my grievance about laying of road without any permission or any sanction by raising the height and width of the road with 160 meters length, 6 meters width and 8 meters height to the east side of my land by causing damage to the bund (Gattu) of my agriculture fields as well as which would cause damage to my fields as the water which floats from the hill top and passes through my fields and reaches the pond next to my land would get stagnated in my land by cause damage to my trees as the height of the land is raised only for the purpose of accessibility to the unofficial respondents to reach their fields which they have occupied illegally on the hill top next to my land even though they are having alternative roads to their fields as being illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and against Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to forthwith stop the work which is under progress for laying the road for the benefit of the 7th to 1 1 th Respondents for their access to the road from hill, the brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition is as under.

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

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

3

JS, J W.P.No.19228/2019

direct the official respondents to stay the laying of road to the east of my land pending disposal of the above writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V NITESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

4

JS, J W.P.No.19228/2019

The Court made the following ORDER:

The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the official respondent Nos.2 to 6 in not taking any action against the unofficial respondents in pursuance to the representations and complaint of the petitioner dated 15.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 ventilating his grievance.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the respondent No.3 laying road without any permission or any sanction by raising the height and width of the road which is to the east side of the petitioner’s land causing damage to the bund (Gattu) of agriculture fields as well as damaging the fields as the water which floats from the hill top and reaching the pond next to the petitioner’s land, leading to stagnation of water and the fields are destroyed.

On 06.12.2019, this Court has directed the respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to resort laying in road on the subject land.

Thought he matter was filed in the year 2019, Gram Panchayat have not filed any affidavit nor provided any written instructions before this Court.

At paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, it was stated that local Panchayat Raj Engineering department officials proposed that if any road is proposed to be laid in the Nayanikunta, then it should be laid at a lower level than the height of the lands of the petitioner and piped culverts should be set up in the road from the points where water from the fields of the writ petitioner flows into the kunta and water flow from the fields of the petitioner is not obstructed in any manner and the petitioner was assured that the Government would not take any step damaging the interest of the petitioner.

5

JS, J W.P.No.19228/2019

Learned counsel for the petitioner consented and requested to record the said statement and close the writ petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader also consented to the said statement as the respondents have made it clear that they will make necessary arrangements by laying piped culverts and without obstructing the petitioner’s field and sought to close the writ petition.

Recording the aforesaid submissions made by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

Date: 07.04.2026 rsd

6

JS, J W.P.No.19228/2019

12

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 19228/2019

Date: 07.04.2026 rsd