Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gorrepati Rajendra Rao vs The State Of Ap on 25 June, 2025
APHC010270612025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14897/2025
Between:
1. GORREPATI RAJENDRA RAO, S/O VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT
64 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO 502, R/O ALAVA RESIDENCY, RAJEEV
NAGAR, LAWYER PETA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. KOTAPATI JANARDHANA RAO,, S/O KOTAPATI NARASIMHAM,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO 913, AYYAPPA SOCIETY,
MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD.
3. KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY, S/O KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74
YEARS, R/O 12-5-67, SUBEDAR STREET, KANDUKURTOWN AND
MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
4. GADIPUDI RAMANAMMA @ RAVANAMMA, W/O KOTESWARARA
RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O 2-72, PONNALURU, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANDUKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
4. KANDUKUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS MUNICIPAL
COMMISSIONER, KANDUKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
2
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT, KANDUKUR, SPSR NELLORE 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, order or Orders more particularly one in the
nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3RD
respondent in laying road blocking entire ingress and egress towards
northern side of petitioner's house plots comprised in Sy.no. 634, 635, 635/2
and 635/3 of Kandukur Town and Mandal SPSR Nellore District without
following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and
consequently direct the respondents to provide the free ingress and egress to
the petitioners house plots comprised in Sy.no. 634, 635, 635/2 and 635/3 of
Kandukur Town and Mandal SPSR Nellore District 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
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14897/2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-
"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in laying road blocking entire ingress and egress towards northern side of petitioner's house plots comprised in Sy.No.634, 635, 635/2 and 635/3 of Kandukur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to provide the free ingress and egress to the petitioners house plots comprised in Sy.No.634, 635, 635/2 and 635/3 of Kandukur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and pass such other order."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gudapati Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is the owner of plot No.119 in Sy.No.634-2 and 3, 2nd petitioner is owner of plot Nos.88 to 100 in Sy.No.635-2 and 3, 3rd petitioner is owner of plot Nos.122 to 147 in Sy.No.635-2 and 3 and 4th petitioner is owner of plot No.116 in Sy.No.634-2 and 3 of Kandukur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. He further submits that the grievance of the petitioners herein is that while constructing the RCC bridge and road at Adi Andhra Colony main 4 road in Sy.No.626, the respondents blocked the ingress and egress passage to the unapproved plots of the petitioners. He further submits that even though it is an unapproved layout, as the petitioners are having vacant sites, they are entitled for their ingress and egress. Hence, the same cannot be closed on the ground that the petitioners are holding plots in unapproved layout. He further submits that even though the passage was formed through unapproved layout the same cannot be closed without following due process and without observing principles of natural justice. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent furnished written instructions, wherein it is stated as follows:
"This Municipality has proposed to construct RCC bridge and road at Adi Andhra Colony Main Road in 8th ward in Sy.No.626 with an estimate of 83.69 lakhs because of the area is inundated during monsoon season and the people going to the nearby villages are being affected during the flood are facing the problems as there is no alternate road existing to the villages. For the free flow of water and traffic, it is proposed to construct RCC bridge in the existing culvert. This municipality has not occupied any of the private land that belongs to the petitioners. The said survey No.626 is classified as Government Donka Poramboke. This office has proposed to construct the said survey No.828 is classified as Government Donka Poramboke.5
This office has proposed to construct only in the Government Land. Only in the Government land RCC bridge at the place of existing culvert.
3. The petitioner has made allegations that the said road is blocking the entire ingress an egress towards northern side of petitioner's house plots comprised in Sy.Nos.634, 635, 635-2 and 635-3 of Kandukur Town where as the said plots are formed in the Unapproved layouts. There is provision to provide the ingress and egress to the unapproved layout and at present the said private lands are vacant."
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the written instructions furnished by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4, it is observed that if any ingress and egress road/passage is formed through an unapproved layout, such ingress and egress passage cannot be closed by the respondents without following due process of law and without observing principles of natural justice. If respondent Nos.3 and 4 intended to cancel or remove the same, they are entitled to do so, but by following due process of law and observing principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioners herein are directed to submit a detailed explanation/representation along with rough sketch of the passage to the respondents, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After submitting the same, the 4th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders with reference to the 6 observations made above, within a period of three(3) months thereafter.
5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 25.06.2025 TPS 7 237 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:14897 of 2025 25.06.2025 TPS