Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chittim Srinivasulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 April, 2026
Author: B Krishna Mohan
Bench: B Krishna Mohan
APHC010193252026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3233]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 11342/2026
Between:
1. CHITTIM SRINIVASULU, S/O. C.LAKSHMINARASAYYA, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.JALLIPETA VILLAGE,
PALAMANER MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
CHITTOOR.517001
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANER. CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.517408
4. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAMANER MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.517408
...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the
part of the Respondent No.4 in issuing notices under provisions of the Andhra
Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and passing order in Proceedings in
D. Dis B/205B/2025 dated 24.03.2026 directing the respondent No. 5 to evict
2
BKM,J
W.P.No.11342 of 2026
petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac. 0.495 cent, in Sy.No.819 of Moram
Revenue village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District in accordance with law
without passing order on petitioner representation dated 29.09.2022,
21.08.2023 made under BSO 15 of the AP. Board Standing orders seeking
for assignment of the same under SIVOI Jamadar category to which
petitioner lawfully entitled as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the provision of the
Board standing orders and the Revised Assignment Policy apart from being
violative of fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to the petitioner
under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, consequently
set aside the Proceedings in D.Dis B/205B/2025 dated 24.03.2026 issued by
the respondents by directing the respondents 2 to 4 to consider petitioner
representations dated 29.09.2022 and 21.08.2023 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Proceedings in
D.Dis B/205B/2025 dated 24.03.2026 issued by the respondent No.4,
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S PARINEETA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
3
BKM,J
W.P.No.11342 of 2026The Court made the following Order:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action on the part of the 4th
respondent issuing notices under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land
Encroachment Act, 1905.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of giving
representations by the petitioner dated 29.09.2022 and 21.08.2023 under BSO
15 of the A.P.Board Standing orders, seeking for assignment of the subject land
under “SIVOI” Jamadar category, the same is not considered so far and the
impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 24.03.2026 was passed in pursuance
of the order of this Court dated 20.02.2026 in W.P.No.5038 of 2026 under
Section 6 & 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in
Sy.No.819, extent Ac.0.495 cents, Moram Revenue Village, Palamaner Mandal,
Chittoor District.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents submits that the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 is an
appealable order before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of Land
Encroachment Act, 1905.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
representation of the petitioner under BSO 15 of the A.P.Board Standing orders
ought to have been considered. But without considering the above said
4
BKM,J
W.P.No.11342 of 2026representations of the petitioner, the above said impugned order has been
passed by the 4th respondent dated 24.03.2026.
6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, and upon consideration
of the rival submissions made, it is to be observed that, as the above said two
issues are for two different reliefs, one cannot wait for the other and both the
issues cannot be clubbed, as they emanate for two different exercises and the
lands. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of the 4 th respondent
dated 24.03.2026, it is open for the petitioner to avail an effective alternative
remedy available under law and at the same time, independently it is open for the
petitioner to make a representation afresh enclosing all the necessary documents
in support of his claim, in continuation of the earlier representations, if any, dated
29.09.2022 and 21.08.2023 under BSO 15 of the A.P.Board Standing orders. If
so made, and if not already considered, the same shall be considered by the
authorities concerned in accordance with law. If an appeal is preferred by the
petitioner against the order of the 4th respondent, the same shall be dealt with in
accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The Interim order, if any,
deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
27.04.2026
RMD
5
BKM,J
W.P.No.11342 of 2026
98
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 11342/2026
27.04.2026
RMD
