SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17995

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B KRISHNA MOHAN
MOHAMMAD USMAN BAIG – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 7808/2026



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:17942 APHC010148462026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3233]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 7808/2026 Between:

1. M OHAMMAD USMAN BAIG, S/O.MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM BAIG, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. QUARTER NO.149, SIHS COLONY, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), VIDYADHARAPURAM,

KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM.

3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

4. T HE TAHSILDAR, GUDURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT.

5. T HE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, PATHANPETA,GUDURU MANDAL KRISHNA 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 Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:17942

Respondents 3 to 5 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property in Sy.No.443/2 an extent of Ac.2.00 cts, situated in Guduru Village and Mandal Krishna District, which is illegal, improper, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.443/2 an extent of Ac.2.00 cts, situated in Guduru Village and

Mandal, Krishna District 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 pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.443/2 an extent of Ac.2.00 cts, situated in Guduru Village and Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and

pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:17942

The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property in Sy.No.443/2 in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents

situated in Guduru Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 23.03.2026 submits that the petitioner is stated to have obtained pattadar passbook and title deed have to be verified from the revenue records. The petitioner is stated to have paid water tax in respect of the subject land. The petitioner claimed to be in possession and cultivation of the land in R.S.No.443/2 and at that stage, the Village Revenue Officer, Guduru and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Guduru have rightly

intervened and prevented such activity.

4. The land in R.S.No.443/3 is a government land alienated in favour of the Krishna University and the 2nd respondent already handed over the advance possession of the said land to the Krishna University vide Rc.No.E1/1086/2008, dated 11.05.2010. Therefore, the action of the revenue authorities in entering the land in R.S.No.443/3 and preventing the petitioner from making an illegal lay out is lawful and

##PAGE4##

4

2026:APHC:17942

justified. The petitioner is attempting to mislead the Hon’ble Court by projecting the issue as interference in his patta land in R.S.No.443/2, whereas the actual illegal interference is by the petitioner with respect to the government land in R.S.No.443/3 and there is no interference whatsoever by the rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top