APHC010060952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3574/2026 Between:

1. K ALA LAKSHMI GANAPATHI, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O DR.NO.2-89, KALAVARI PETA, PALLI PALEM(V),GAJULURU (M), KAKINADA DT., ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRI., SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI

2. T HE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES (SUB DIVISION) DEPT., LNDRAPALEM-533006, KAKINADA

3. T HE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES, (SUB DIVISION) DEPT., LNDRAPALEM-533006,KAKINADA ...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 to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Final Notice Dt.,12.01.2026 vide No.DEE/KKD SD/KKD Sec./ Final Notice issued by the Respondent No.3 is violative of Art., 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction besides being non application of judicious mind and directing not to proceed further and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to suspend the final Notice Dt.,12.01.2026 vide No.DEE/KKD SD/KKD Sec./ Final Notice issued by the Respondent No.3 pending W.P.

and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TAMMA POOJA DEEPTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Impugning the proceedings dated 12.01.2026 issued vide No.DEE/KKD SD/KKD Sec4/Final notice by the 3^rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.J.Pooja Deepthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation.

3. Learned Senior Counsel while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the 3^rd respondent–Executive Engineer issued a show cause notice vide notice No.DEE/WRSD/KKD Sec/4 dated

22.12.2025 alleging that the petitioner had encroached an extent of 30 Sq. meters of land in Sy.No.41 and called upon him to submit an explanation as to why the alleged encroachments should not be removed giving 15 days time. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 02.01.2026 and sent the same by registered post on 03.01.2026. However, without considering the said explanation, the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2026 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment within 30 days.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the impugned order it is categorically stated that the petitioner failed to submit any explanation, which is incorrect. It is further contended that without conducting any survey to ascertain the alleged encroachment, the impugned order has been passed which does not indicate as to how the authorities have arrived at such conclusion that the petitioner encroached 30 Sq. meters of land. He further submitted that even in the show cause notice, the land is described as Government land whereas the respondents now contend that it is Irrigation land. He further submitted that if the subject land is a Government land, the 3^rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such notice. However, as a precautionary measure, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The impugned order is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside at admission stage itself, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the impugned order submitted that there is no illegality or procedural irregul