Sunnam Suri Babu Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Sunnam Suri Babu Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of directing that the Respondents shall not interfere with the Petitioner's possession of the scheduled land and that any action shall be taken in accordance with law; there shall be no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent Nos.5 and 6, with the active support of Respondent Nos.8 to 10, in trying to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.3.14 Cents in Survey No.461-2A, Doramamidi Village, Buttayagudem Mandal, is illegal and arbitrary.

Court's answer

Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner's possession of the scheduled land was not in dispute, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition with directions.

Ratio / Principle

The Respondents were directed not to interfere with the Petitioner's possession of the scheduled land, and any action relating to the land shall be taken in accordance with the law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-member order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Nyapathy Vijay, J) disposing of a writ petition by Sunnam Suri Babu, who sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the alleged attempts of the Tahsildar and the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), Buttayagudem Mandal (Respondent Nos.5 and 6), with the support of Respondent Nos.8 to 10, to interfere with his possession of Ac.3.14 Cents in Survey No.461-2A, Doramamidi Village, contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution. The Assistant Government Pleader stated that the land stood recorded in the Petitioner's name, that a survey had been conducted pursuant to a PGRS complaint by Respondent Nos.8 to 10, that no orders for dispossessing the Petitioner had been issued, and that any action would be taken strictly in accordance with law. Holding that the Petitioner's possession of the scheduled land was not in dispute, the Court disposed of the petition directing the Respondents not to interfere with his possession and to act in accordance with law; no costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

APHC010172662026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3460]

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 9533/2026

Between:

SUNNAM SURI BABU, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-381, DORAMAMIDI VILLAGE, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, NOW ELURU DISTRICT - 534448

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534006.

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, KOTARAMACHANDRAPURAM, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534311.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 534447.

2

THE TAHSILDAR, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534448

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR TRIBAL WELFARE, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -534448.

THE ITDA PROJECT OFFICER, KOTARAMACHANDRAPURAM, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534311.

CHAVALAM CHANDRAMMA, W/O RAJULU, R/O PIDAKAPPAGUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 534447.

BUDDULA GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE GANGA RAJU, DORAMATNIDI VILLAGE, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, NOW ELURU DISTRICT - 534448.

GODDE VENKAYAMMA, W/O SATYANARYANA, R/O MARLAGUDEM VILLAGE, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT - 534448.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondents No.5 and 6 and their staff in trying to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' land of an extent of Ac.3.14 cents in Survey No. 4612A situated at Doramamidi Village, Buttayagudem Mandal, West Godavari District, Now Eluru District, with the active support and influence of the Respondents No.8 to 10, without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, violation of under Articles 14,

3

21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and against to the well settled principles of natural justice and to pas

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 No.5 and 6 and their staff not to interfere with the Petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of Ac.3.14 cents in Survey No.461-2A situated at Doramamidi Village, Buttayagudem Mandal, West Godavari District, Now Eluru District, during the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

The Court made the following:

4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.9533 of 2026

O R D E R:

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner in his land (an extent of Ac.3.14 Cents in Survey No.461-2A situated at Doramamidi Village, Buttayagudem Mandal, West Godavari District (now Eluru District)), as illegal and arbitrary.

The Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the above mentioned land and was cultivating the land personally along with his family members. While so, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 at the instance of Respondent Nos.8 to 10 were trying to interfere with the possession of the property. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions

submitted that the land stands in the name of the Petitioner and that the survey was conducted pursuant to the complaint given by Respondent Nos.8 to 10 through Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS). It was further submitted that no

5

orders for dispossessing the Petitioner had been issued, and

any action would be taken strictly in accordance with the law.

In the light of the submissions and taking note of the fact that the possession of the Petitioner in the scheduled land was not in dispute, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:-

(i) The Respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the Petitioner in the scheduled land and any action shall be taken in accordance with the law.

(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in this Petition shall stand closed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 17.04.2026 chs

6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

21

WRIT PETITION NO:9533/2026

Dt. 17.04.2026

chs