Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9454
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH, J
polamreddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 29624 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRK REDDY KOWURI
For the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE, GP FOR HOME
Administrative actions cannot interfere with ongoing civil litigation, preserving legal rights and procedures.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A - Petition under Article 226 for issuance of Mandamus - Petitioner claims the actions of the respondents are arbitrary and illegal as they interfere during the pendency of a civil suit regarding land title - Court emphasizes the need to protect the petitioner's possession and not allow interference until the suit is resolved. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Conduct of survey and interference with possession by authorities is questioned in the light of ongoing civil litigation - Court highlights the principle that administrative actions should not undermine legal proceedings. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a vice-chairman, seeks to stop the government from conducting a survey and submitting a report on land disputed during the pendency of a civil suit. The petitioner argues this action is against established legal procedures and his fundamental rights.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner or take any steps regarding the survey until further orders.
Issues: The main issue addressed is the authority of the respondents to conduct a survey during ongoing civil proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative actions should not interrupt civil litigation and emphasized the respect for ongoing legal processes.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court emphasizes the need for respect in ongoing litigation. (Para 4) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO .-PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29624 OF 2022 Between :
polamreddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy, S/o Krjshna Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ vice-chaI'rman Rayachoty Municipality, R/o. Door No.37/69, S.N.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal,-Annamayya District ...Petitioner 'AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by I-tS PrincI-Pal Secretary, Revenue Department, secretariat Buildings, velagapudi, Amaravatj, Guntur District.
-2. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty M~andal, Annamayya Distr,'ct.
3. The Sub-Inspector of police, Rayachoty (u/s) police stall-On, Rayachoty, Annamayya Distrl-ct.
4. Madem Adi Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late M.Gangi Reddy, Aged about 64 years, N.G.O.Colony, R`ayabhoty Town and Mandal, Annamayya District. i, ...Respondents petition under Article 226 of the ConstI-tutiOn Of India praying that in the;`
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directl-on more particularly one in the nature of wrl-I of Mandamus declaring the Letter, dated 21.08.2022`
addressed by the respondent Nor.3 requesting the respondent Noa2 to conduct the survey and submit report ih respect of the land in an extent of *Ac.0.50 cents in sy.No.553 of Rayachoty village and Mandal, Annamayya District tor _ -` •t i,6t settle the title dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 ..a . +. ,,y`.J`+, t|hat too during pendency of the civil suit in o.s No.21 of 2022 on the file of I ,_the court of principal Junior C.ivil Judge, Rayachoty as arbitrary, illegal, quite .` I.* \
rcontrary to the procedure envl'sa`g_ed under the provI'SiOnS the Andhra Pradesh *¢ seurvey and Boundaries Act,_,,1923, BSO 34-A of the Board of Revenue A I f. I `* -i.`,_a:ltsaond:nhge owredl:rs:stthaebll:lrecdula:rIInnclRp:esNoa:::65f4r:/m99 Jbde:ntged v:o5IaOt;v:00olf :hned -`'* `
fundamental and Constl-tutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14,19, 21 and 300-A of the ConstI-tutiOn Of India and consequently set aside the same and such order or orders fit and proper and circumstance of the case. '' (prayer is amended in+'wri{ petition and affI-davit aS Per the CourtJs `:`prder dated 27.06.2025 vide`:'6rder passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024)
I;:^J! -'l, ,.~.`
\
;]A NOI. OF 2022 I. --.-. *
+6 Petition under sec'ti-on 151` CPC praying that in the circumstances:
`§tated in the affidavit filed ih-'su'pporf of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant further stay of all further proceedI-ngS in Pursuance Of the:i Letter, dated 21.08.2022 addressed by the respondent No.3, Pending disposail
6f wp 29624 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.
-.. '\i{,i,` I ._ .
The Petition comin.g ont6r hearing, upon perusing the petition and th6'
:`affI-davit filed in support th6reof a`nd upon hearing the arguments of srl| v Rat REDDY KOWURl, Advocat'e-for the petitioner, and of GP FOR REVENUE, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, and of GP FOR HOME, for the Respondentq No.3, the Court made lherfoll6wing S'
1.m,~-H>`*+\_owl':y = ri .
I I - I ` \ ` + I\€ {_
JRDER:
Leamed counsel for:ythe, -petitioner(s) is permI-tied tO take Out ..:i ;,Personal notice to Respondent No.4 by RPAD and file proof of servI-Ce :i,into the Registry. ,.`
Om perusal of the do-cuments filed along with this writ petition -3Clearly discloses that the 4th respondent has filed suit in os.No.21 of .2022 on the file of Court of principal Junior Civil Judge Rayachoty +equesting to grant permanent injunction in favour of him. He has als6 filed two illterlocutory applications under order 26 RLIIe 9 'C.P.C td appoI-nt an advocate commissioner to fix boundaries of the suit Schedule property with the, help of MandaI Surveyor. tWhen the civil court is unable to grant -`imjunction agaI-nSt the petitioners, the:
