Disposed

Sri Sulam Pedda Obulesu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Apr 2026WP/9449/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a notice by the Tahsildar alleging illegal occupation of government land via bore-well and transformer. The Court directed the respondents to hear the petitioners' explanations, maintain status quo, and decide the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained; petitioners granted four weeks to submit explanations; enquiry to be concluded within three months.

Sri Sulam Pedda Obulesu Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010171482026

¶2

[3233]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9449/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

SRI SULAM PEDDA OBULESU, S/O LATE S. GOVINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 3/22, RAPTADU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. -515123

¶10

SRI SULAM VASANTHU,, S/O LATE S. GOVINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 3-22-A, RAPTADU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. -515123

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. -522237

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR DIVISION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.-515001

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, RAPTADU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. - 515123

¶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 in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 3RD respondent, in issuing the notice vide Rc. No. B/398/2024 dated 30.03.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles

¶18

¶19

BKM,J W.P.No.9449 of 2026

¶20

14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and Consequently, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the same, and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 suspend the operation of the proceedings vide Rc. No. B/398/2024 dated: 30.03.2026, issued by the 3RD respondent, and grant such other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case AND PASS

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.K SRINIVAS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

¶28

BKM,J W.P.No.9449 of 2026

¶29

The Court made the following Order:

¶30

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

¶31

This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 30.03.2026 directing the petitioners to submit their explanation if any within 7 days alleging that in the Government land as detailed in the said notice, the petitioners are using illegally the bore-well and D.P. transformer and pipelines and basing upon the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Rapthadu and Village Revenue Officer, the said notice was issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice is not clear and under what provision of law the 3^rd respondent issued the above said notice and without giving any opportunity for the petitioners there is a threat of highhanded action.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 3^rd respondent dated 01.04.2026 submits that the Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu in Rc.No.4080/2025/Co-ordn.ROR, dated 12.12.2025 ordered to retain the land as "Gajubanda (Water Body)" in Webland Portal and ordered deletion of the petitioners' names i.e., Sy.No.103-

¶34

2 to an extent of Ac.4.90 cents recorded in the name of Sri S.Vasanthu w/o Govindu vide Khata No.1363 and Sy.No.103-3 in an extent of Ac.2.86 cents

¶35

¶36

BKM,J W.P.No.9449 of 2026

¶37

recorded in the name of Sri S.Pedda Obulesu S/o Govindu. The writ petitioners made unauthorized constructions in the Government land including digging of bore-well, setting up of D.P. transformer and pipelines and they are using unautorizedly over the Government land and they are in illegal occupation and usage of the Government land.

¶38

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to submit their explanations, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim to the above said notice of the 3^rd respondent dated 30.03.2026 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such explanations from the petitioners, the 3^rd respondent shall proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said notice dated 30.03.2026 strictly in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioners, giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land and the movables attached therein, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months thereafter. Pending the enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land and the attachments made therein. The said instructions of the 3^rd respondent dated 01.04.2026 shall be made as part of the Court record.

¶39

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

¶41

BKM,J

¶42

W.P.No.9449 of 2026

¶43

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

¶44

closed.

¶45

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶46

09.04.2026 PGT

Sri Sulam Pedda Obulesu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sulam Pedda Obulesu v. the State of Ap

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

Akkina Lakshmi Narayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Erla Madavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velicheti Sundara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammu Surekha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Amaranadha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V C Gangadhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh