Disposed

P. Munaswamy Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jan 2026WP/36722/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection from revenue authorities interfering with his possession of land in Sy.No.108/3A, Krishnajammapuram village. The Government Pleader stated a DKT patta stands in his name and an ROR appeal is pending; authorities would follow due process. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on respondents' assurance not to dispossess petitioner except per due process; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

P. Munaswamy Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010702652025

¶2

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

¶3

[3208]

¶4

MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 36722/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. MUNASWAMY NAIDU, , S/O. P. LATE MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. 3-65, B.C. COLONY, BALIJA KANDRIGA, KRISHNAJAMMAPURAM, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR - 517002

¶13

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT O/O DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR - 517002

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NAGARI REVENUE DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517001

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 517 415

¶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 order or direction more particularly

¶18

one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No. 5, in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.47 cents in Sy. No. 108/3A of Krishnajammapuram village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the principles of natural justice besides being violative of articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No. 5, not to interefere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property situated in an extent of Ac. 1.47 cents in Sy. No. 10813A of Krishnajammapuram village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 Respondent No. 5 to not to interfere into the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.47 cents in Sy. No. 10813A of Krishnajammapuram village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶28

India seeking the following relief:

¶29

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

¶30

Respondents more particularly the Respondent No 5 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac 1 47 cents in Sy No 108/3A of Krishnajammapuram village Palasamudram Mandal Chittoor District as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional contrary to the principles of natural justice besides being violative of articles 14 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No 5 not to interefere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property situated in an extent of Ac 1 47 cents in Sy No 10813A of Krishnajammapuram village Palasamudram Mandal Chittoor District and to pass...”

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader for the respondents, on instructions received from the Tahsildar, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, vide instructions dated 02.01.2026, submitted that as per the Fair Adangal of Krishnajammapuram Village, the land in Sy.No.108/3, to an extent of Ac.2.47 cents, is classified as “Ralla Gutta”. It is further stated that a DKT Patta was issued to Sri P. Munaswamy Naidu, S/o Late Munaswamy Naidu, vide DKT No.120/4/1396 in respect of Sy.No.108/3A to an extent of Ac.1.47 cents. On verification of the Webland Adangal of Krishnajammapuram Village, Sy.No.108/3A to an extent of Ac.1.47 cents stands registered in the name of Sri P. Munaswamy Naidu, S/o Late Munaswamy Naidu, vide Khata No.615. It is also submitted that the said

¶33

survey number is the subject matter of an ROR appeal pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagari. It is further stated that the revenue authorities shall follow due process of law and shall not dispossess the petitioner except in accordance with law.

¶34

In view of the above statement, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶36

JUSTICE D RAMESH 05.01.2026 RMD

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 36722/2025

¶39

05.01.2026 RMD

P. Munaswamy Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Munaswamy Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasari Bhagya Lakshmi Vs Miss Chennam Sudha Rani

.S.v.Infra, Vs Smt. Y.Sri Lakshmi I.A.S

Peeta Ravindra Babu Vs Miss. Chennam Sudha Rani

Gudditi Nagaraju Vs the State of Ap

B. Chalapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Unnam Sumathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh