Thamanara Sathi Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2026WP/19951/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 19951 of 2019; Justice Sumathi Jagadam; disposed 07.04.2026; Article 226 mandamus; Section 151 CPC interim application IA No.1/2019; B.S.O-18; patta land Sy.No.229-2 Ac.0-20 cents; Yendapalle Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam; Tahsildar caution board; resumption order; encroachment 0.08 acres Survey No.31/4 government land allotted to homeless poor; due process of law removal of encroachment; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of: Tahsildar to verify and remove any board erected in Sy.No.229-2; respondents permitted to remove the approx. 0.08-acre encroachment in Sy.No.31/4 through due process of law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶¶36

Thamanara Sathi Babu, Vs The 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 4th respondent Tahsildar in threatening to dispossess the petitioner by putting a board on his patta land in Sy.No.229-2, Yendapalle Village, without passing a resumption order, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional contrary to provisions of B.S.O-18, and whether the board should be removed from Sy.No.229-2. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

The 4th respondent Tahsildar is directed to verify whether a board has been erected in Sy.No.229-2 at Yendapalle Village; if such a board is found there, it shall be removed by the 4th respondent.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

With respect to the petitioner's encroachment of approximately 0.08 acres in Sy.No.31/4 (government land allotted to homeless poor per the 4th respondent's written instructions), the respondents are permitted to follow due process of law to effect removal of the encroachments.

¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226), decided 07.04.2026 by Smt Justice Sumathi Jagadam, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati: Petitioner Thamanara Sathi Babu alleged that the Tahsildar, Kotauratla Mandal threatened dispossession by erecting a caution board on his patta land of Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.229-2, Yendapalle Village, without any resumption order, contrary to B.S.O-18. Government records showed he was allotted ~0.20 acres in Sy.No.229/2 but occupied ~0.08 acres of government land in Sy.No.31/4 earmarked for house sites to the homeless poor. The Court directed the Tahsildar to verify and remove any board found in Sy.No.229-2, while permitting the respondents to remove the Sy.No.31/4 encroachment strictly through due process of law. Petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

APHC010415612019

¶2

[3459]

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 19951/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

THAMANARA SATHI BABU,, S/O KANTAMAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O 4-45, YENDAPALLE VILLAGE KOTAURATLA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT , VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, KOTAURATLA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent Tahsildar in threatening to dispossess the petitioner by putting the board in premises of the petitioners patta land an extent of in an extent of an land in Sy.No.229-2 to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents situated Yendapalle Village of

¶18

¶19

Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without passing an resumption order as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and contrary to provisions of B.S.O-18 and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner in his patta land mentioned above without following due process of law,

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

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 the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner in his patta land an land in Sy.No.229 2 to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents situated Yendapalle Village of Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without following due process of law, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.N RAVI PRASAD

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri B. Surya Chandra, learned counsel representing Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶30

The petitioner contends that the 4^th respondent, Tahsildar, is threatening to dispossess the petitioner by erecting a board on the land measuring 0.20 acres in Sy.No.229-2, located at Yendapalle Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶31

The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has filed written instructions from the 4^th respondent, clearly stating that the petitioner was allotted approximately 0.20 acres of land in Survey No. 229/2, located in Yendapalle Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. However, the petitioner has been occupying about 0.08 acres in Survey No. 31/4 at Yendapalle Village. Upon identifying this discrepancy, the revenue authorities instructed the petitioner to vacate the encroached land to facilitate the issuance of house sites to the homeless poor. The petitioner, instead of complying with these instructions, has filed the present writ petition, alleging that the revenue authorities have erected a caution board indicating that the land belongs to the Government.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have erected a board, as indicated above, in Sy.No.229-2. The petitioner therefore prays for removal of the said board from the land in Sy.No.229-2.

¶33

¶34

This Court notes that the written instructions of the 4^th respondent explicitly state that the petitioner has occupied an extent of 0.08 acres in Sy.No.31/4 at Yendapalle Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which is classified as government land allotted to homeless and poor individuals. Accordingly, the 4^th respondent is directed to verify whether a board has been erected in Sy.No.229-2 at Yendapalle Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. If such a board is found to be erected in Sy.No.229-2, the same shall be removed by the 4^th respondent. Regarding the encroachment of approximately 0.08 acres in Sy.No.31/4 at Yendapalle Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the respondents are permitted to follow due process of law to effect removal of the encroachments.

¶35