APHC010023962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3328]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 1681/2026 Between:

1. M ARISETTY RAGHAVAIAH, S/O.PRASADA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.8-3-1075, FLAT NO301,JYOTHI HOMES, SRINAGAR COLONY, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238

2. T HE ELURU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, AP REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER 534001

3. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU, AP 534001 ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri A. Lalith Nikhil, learned Counsel representing Sri G.

Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K.N. Krishna Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation.

2. On the last occasion, i.e., on 10.03.2026, Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions dated 10.03.2026 along with a Sketch and Photograph. Copies of the same are supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same are taken on record.

3. The relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder:

“Further, T.S. No. 462/1B, as per the Town Survey records, is recorded as Jirayiti (private) land. The existing municipal road from Flyover to Thammileru also appears to have been formed within T.S. No. 462/1B, which is recorded as private land in the Town Survey records. However, the details of this road are not recorded in the Town Survey records.

Moreover, it is informed that no approved layout exists in the Narasimharao Peta area as per the records available in this office. Therefore, since the land between the petitioner's site T.S. No. 462/2 and the existing road falls within T.S. No. 462/1B, which is recorded as private land in the Town Survey records, and since Smt. Nagalakshmi and Sri Akkinapalli Bala Murali Krishna have purchased the land through registered documents, the land alleged by the petitioner as an encroachment cannot be identified as an encroachment. It is also submitted that the road from Narasimharao Peta Flyover to Thammileru is not a Master Plan Road as per the present Master Plan. The sketch showing the above details is enclosed herewith.

Hence, the allegations of encroachment, as made by the petitioner, cannot be treated as established violations without proper survey records or statutory documentation supporting such classification.”

4. The above extract would also indicate that the Site claimed by the Petitioner is situated in T.S. No. 462/2, whereas the existing road falls within T.S. No. 462/1B, and the said road is recorded as private land in the Town Survey records.

5. It appears that the owners of the private land in T.S. No. 462/1B are Smt. Nagalakshmi and Sri Akkinapalli Bala Murali Krishna.

6. From the above facts, it appears to the Court that the claim of the Petitioner that the Respondents have laid a road in the land belonging to the Petitioner is disputed, inasmuch as the road is in T.S. No. 462/1B, whereas the Petitioner’s site is situated in T.S. No. 462/2.

7. Since there is a clear dispute regarding the location of the road, this Court is of the view that these factual aspects cannot be adjudicated in the present Writ Petition, inasmuch as third parties, namely Smt. Nagalakshmi and Sri Akkinapalli Bala Murali Krishna, are also involved, as the road lies in