APHC010123792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-2 [3552]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.238 of 2026 Sadu Satyanarayana and another ...Appellants Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents **********

Advocate for appellants : Sri P. R. K. Amarendra Kumar Advocates for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats.

CORAM : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th March 2026 P C :

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated 25.02.2026 in Writ Petition No.4277 of 2026.

2. The petitioners were challenging the action of the official respondents in constructing a water tank in R.S.No.81 of A. Polavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal, Eluru District, which is classified as “Cart track/bandi daari’ as contrary to the provisions of the Board Standing Orders and therefore, mandamus was sought to prohibit the official respondents from constructing any such water tank in the land in question.

3. The learned single Judge, by virtue of the order impugned, observed that a parcel of land measuring approximately Ac.0-03 cents only out of Ac.0-50 cents in R.S.No.81 of A. Polavaram Village was sought to be used for construction of a water tank pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 30.04.2025. It is also observed based upon the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the construction of the water tank would be in the interest of the villagers and would not obstruct the passage of the petitioners to reach their lands or even transporting the produce.

4. It was in the aforementioned facts and circumstances that the learned single Judge held it not a fit case for grant of any interim order prohibiting the construction of the water tank inasmuch as it was thought that the same was for the benefit of the villagers and for public purpose. However, while permitting the official respondents to file their counter affidavits, it was observed that the construction undertaken would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The matter has now been fixed on 30.03.2026 for the counter affidavit of the official respondents.

5. Although learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned single Judge ought to have gone into the basic question as to whether construction on a portion of land, which was classified as “Cart track”, was at all permissible may be for purposes of construction of a water tank, which might ultimately benefit the villagers in question, the learned single Judge having not addressed that issue would make the order unsustainable.

6. While that issue may not have specifically been addressed by the learned single Judge, and the order appears to have taken into consideration the comparative benefit which would accrue to the villagers for whose benefit the water tank is stated to have been envisaged and is currently under construction, yet, in our opinion also, the situation is not such as would warrant and immediate interference by us at this stage, as the whole issue is yet to be considered at length for which counter affidavit has already been sought in the matter. The observation that the ingress and egress of the appellants is in any way not hampered is sufficient for the time being to prevent us from interfering with the order impugned in the present writ appeal leaving it open to the learned single Judge to deal with the main issue after pleadings are completed as to whether such a construction was at all permissible over land which was otherwise classified as “cart track/bandi daari”.

7. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present Writ Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD

03 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ S