Settippalle Arjun Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SETTIPPALLE ARJUN REDDY, , S/O LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O P.N. COLONY, MOTAKATIA VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 516215

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, MADANAPALLE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517325.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, SAMBEPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 517325.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner and high handedly attempting to remove existing trees from the land in Survey No.811/22 of Motakatia Village, Sambepalle Mandal Annamayya District, as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents not to

¶17

2

¶18

HBKM,J W.P.No.2171 of 2026

¶19

interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land except by following due process of law,

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 restrain the respondents, their subordinates, agents or any persons claiming through them from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey No.811/22, including from cutting, removing or damaging the existing trees pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.P SUBASH

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

3

¶27

HBKM,J W.P.No.2171 of 2026

¶28

The Court made the following Order:

¶29

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

¶30

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner and highhandedly attempting to remove the existing trees from the land in Sy.No.811/22 of Motakatla Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Annamayya District.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the RSR of the said village the Sy.No.811 is shown as dotted land. It does not mean that it is the Government land. However, the petitioner made application on 19.01.2026 through the PGRS in the office of the 2^nd respondent, but the same is not considered so far.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 3^rd respondent dated 27.01.2026 submits that the subject land claimed by the petitioner is a Government land and it is recorded as dotted land in the revenue records. The petitioner without any semblance of right, title or authority, illegally trying to encroach upon the said land overnight. The petitioner is already in possession of the patta land in Sy.No.807 to an extent of Ac.6.27 cents and in Sy.No.805 to an extent of Ac.1.74 and he is a retired Government employee and as such he is not eligible for grant of DKT patta under the governing rules. The encroachment

¶33

4

¶34

HBKM,J W.P.No.2171 of 2026

¶35

is a clear violation of law and squarely attracts the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶36

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application dated 19.01.2026 has not been considered so far. For which, the learned Assistant Government Pleader also submits that in the receipt itself it is shown as it will be considered and resolved on or before 19.04.2026 and hence it shall be treated as a premature writ petition.

¶37

In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, if any, dated 19.01.2026, strictly in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioner, giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order. The written instructions of the 3^rd respondent dated 27.01.2026, shall be made as part of the Court record.

¶38

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶41

27.01.2026 PGT

Settippalle Arjun Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Settippalle Arjun Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Rayanki Yashwanth Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mastangari Rangamma Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Zubair Vs the State of Ap

Rai Thimmappa Vs the State of Ap

Devanaboyina Ramakrishna Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Konamakulla Sreenivasulu Vs the State of Ap