Dismissed¶32

Poothi Chinnayya v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jan 2026WP/446/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed — Article 226 — mandamus for land protection refused — efficacious alternative remedy — civil suit O.S.No.222 of 2021 pending — declaration of title — trespass by 8th respondent M/s Sai Infra Developers — Survey No. 94/1, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam — Ac.0.63 cents — representations dated 05.12.2025, 06.12.2025, 09.12.2025 — inaction of revenue authorities — Articles 14, 21, 300-A — High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati — Justice D. Ramesh — 07.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court opined that the petitioner's grievance is essentially against the 8th respondent, and a civil dispute relating to the subject property is admittedly pending adjudication before the competent civil court. ¶32

Poothi Chinnayya Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010719662025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3208]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 446/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

POOTHI CHINNAYYA, S/O LATE POOTHI NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 9-38-54, RAYAPALEM VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531163.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT530002.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530002.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531163.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530020.

¶18

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHEEMUNIPATNAM ZONE - 531163.

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, A.P. EASTERN POWER

¶20

DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APEPDCL) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530013.

¶21

M/S SAI INFRA DEVELOPERS, REGD. NO. 844/2017, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530013.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶25

to issue an order, proceedings or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus authorities in enabling the 8TH respondent to make a passage road for the layout, through the petitioners land situated in Survey No. 94/1, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, wherein the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment in an extent of Ac.0.63 cents and without taking appropriate action, despite petitioners representations dated 05.12.2025, 06.12.2025 and 09.12.2025, in respect of the supra subject agricultural property, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and it is consequently prayed to direct the respondents 2- 6 to forthwith protect the petitioners agricultural land situated in Survey No. 94/1, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, wherein the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0.63 cents from any kind of encroachments, including the actions of the 8TH respondent and their henchmen from trespassing into or interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land, including laying of roads, drainage lines, or erection of electrical poles, without authority of law and it is further consequently prayed to direct the respondents to forthwith consider and dispose of the 05.12.2025, 06.12.2025 and 09.12.2025 strictly in accordance with law, by following due process and to pass…..”

¶26

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

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have illegally and arbitrarily permitted the 8^th respondent to form a passage

¶28

road for a layout through the petitioner’s land situated in Survey No.94/1 of Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the said land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.63 cents. It is further submitted that despite repeated representations dated 05.12.2025, 06.12.2025, and 09.12.2025 made by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid agricultural property, the respondent authorities have failed to take any appropriate action, which conduct is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 8^th respondent, without any authority of law, entered upon the petitioner’s land, compelling the petitioner to institute a civil suit in O.S.No.222 of 2021 before the competent court seeking declaration of title. The said suit is admittedly pending adjudication. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the 8th respondent, along with his henchmen, has once again trespassed into the petitioner’s land, damaged the boundary fencing, and commenced illegal construction activities, thereby interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Such illegal acts include laying of roads, construction of drainage lines, and erection of electrical poles, all without any authority of law. It is further submitted that the aforesaid illegal acts were brought to the notice of the respondent authorities by way of representations. However, despite being duty bound to protect the life and property of citizens, the respondent authorities have

¶30

deliberately failed to take any action on the said representations, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

¶31

Based on the above averments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the petitioner approaches the authorities seeking protection, it is the bounden duty of the authorities to safeguard the life and property of the petitioner. It is further contended that the continued inaction on the part of the respondent authorities warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Upon perusal of the averments and upon consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is essentially against the 8^th respondent. Admittedly, a civil dispute relating to the subject property is pending adjudication before the competent civil court. In view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy and the pendency of civil litigation, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.

¶33

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

¶34

________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 07.01.2026 klk

¶35

167

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.446 of 2026

¶38

07.01.2026 klk