Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Birudugadda Satyanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 November, 2025
APHC010629132025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 32698/2025
Between:
1. BIRUDUGADDA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. SURYARAO MALE, AGED
34 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.3
NO.3-134,
134, I.S. RAGHAVAPURAM VILLAGE,
DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (ERNST WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT).
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. I S RAGHAVAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL,
ELURU DISTRICT (ERNST WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU,ELURU DISTRICT, (ERNST
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDIGUDEM,
ELURU DISTRICT, (ERNST WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).
5. THE TAHSILDAR, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, DWARAKA TIRUMALA
MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (ERNST WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).
6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...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 OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of
the respondents in trying to acquire my house site which was an extent of 150
Sq. Yards out of 242 Sq. Yards in Survey No.228 Grama Kantam situated at
I.S. Raghavapuram Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District (Ernst
West Godavari District) by 2nd respondent without following Provision of
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
without giving any notice, for an extent of 150 Sq. Yards out of 242 Sq. Yards
in Survey No.228 Grama Kantam situated at I.S. Raghavapuram Village,
Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District (Ernst West Godavari District) and
set aside the illegal proceedings of 2nd respondent, under Land Acquisition
Act with intention to wrongful loss to the petitioner on the ground of Road
extension, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, violative of Article 300-A and
21 of the Constitution of India and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 to 2nd Respondent not to acquire my property i.e., house
site which was ancestral, without due course of law for an extent of 150 Sq.
Yards out of 242 Sq. Yards in Survey No.228 'Grama Kantam' in I.S.
Raghavapuram Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District (Ernst West
Godavari District) under Land Acquisition Act, pending disposal of the above
Writ Petition as pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GANDHAM SR PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
2. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondent no.2 in trying to acquire the house property of the petitioner in an extent of 150 sq. yards in Survey No.228 situated in Grama Kantam of I.S. Raghavapuram village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri Gandham S.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat.
3. The learned Standing Counsel by placing on record the written instructions of the Panchayat Secretary, I.S.Raghavapuram Village, submitted that the authorities had never interfered with the subject property and there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and others. He further submitted that if the authorities want to interfere, they would follow due process of law.
4. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, since the authorities had never interfered with the subject property, this writ petition can be closed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. The respondent authorities shall not interfere with the property of the petitioner, except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR