APHC010277422022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17590/2022 Between: 1. KANDI TATA RAO,, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O AKKIVARAM VILLAGE, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. THE AKIVARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, AKKIVARAM VILLAGE, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. KANDI TATUNAIDU, S/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O AKKIVARAM VILLAGE, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the actions of the respondents 3 to 5 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's house property bearing Assessment No.817, situated in Sy.Nos. 54/12 and 54/13 of Akkivaram village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District at the behest of the 6th respondent against whom there is an injunction order in IA.No.318 of 2021 in O.S.No.680 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, dt.1.02.2022, as arbitrary, illegal, high handed and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of his house property bearing Assessment No.817, situated in Sy.Nos. 54/12 and 54/13 of Akkivaram village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 vacate the interim order dated 2?.06.2022 in W.P.No. 17590 of 2022 as divide of merits and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 vacate the Interim order dated 29.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 17590 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. P SHREE RAM The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri U Nagendra, learned counsel representing Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswar Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri Sridhar learned counsel representing Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 5 in interfering with the petitioner's house property bearing assessment No. 817, in Survey Nos. 54/12 and 54/13, Akkivaram Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, at the behest of respondent No. 6, despite an injunction order, dated 01.02.2022, in I.A. No. 318 of 2021 in O.S. No. 680 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner purchased 290.4 square yards in survey No.54/13 as well as the adjacent land admeasuring 338.8 square yards in survey No.54/12 under registered documents bearing Nos.3238/2015 and 2616/2018 dated 02.05.2015 and 23.07.2018 respectively from respective owners i.e. respondent No.6 and one Meesala Rajamma, W/o Late Appalanarayana and two others. In the year, 2016, the petitioner applied for a building plan before respondent No.5. The permission was granted vide No. B.R. No.3/2016 dated 05.03.2016, permitting the petitioner to construct ‘RCC G + 2’ house structure. Accordingly, the petitioner constructed the house and also obtained an electricity service connection. The Grama Panchayat assessed the property for taxes, and the petitioner has been regularly paying taxes. While so, on 05.12.2021, respondent No. 6 attempted to demolish the southern side wall and main gate of the house. Therefore, the petitioner filed suit O.S.No.680 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Vijayanagaram. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.318 of 2021, seeking an ad interim injunction. The Civil Court granted ad interim injunction on 01.02.2022. Respondent No.6 has been making complaints to respondent No.2 through the Spandana program and also influencing respondents 3 and 5 to cancel the petitioner’s building plan and to demolish the petitioner’s house. Hence, respondent No.5, on 26.02.2022, sent a word to the petitioner, asking him to appear before the authority. However, the petitioner did not appear before respondent No. 5 due to the pendency of suit O.S.No.680 of 2021. Respondent No.5, due to the pressure from respondents 3 and 4 has been sending people to the house and threatening to cancel the building plan approval. Hence, the writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. It was contented, inter alia, that the petitioner made an application to the Gram Panchayat for approval of building plan and the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, approved the plan vide B.R.No.3 by 2016 dated 05.03.2016. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted a copy of the registered document dated 02.05.2015, in which the extent of the land is shown as Ac.0.06 cents or 290.4 square yards in survey No. 54/13. In the proceedings, permission was granted to construct a house in an extent of Ac.0-11 cents of land in survey No.54/13. However, the extent available on the ground in survey No.54/13, is Ac.0-06 cents. Later, the petitioner purchased Ac.0.07 cents or 338.80 square yards in survey No.54/12, adjacent to the property under a unregistered document dated 23.07.2018. (i) Respondent No. 6 submitted a representation on 09.11.2020 in the Spandana Programme. Thereafter, a hearing notice dated 10.11.2020 was issued to the petitioner. Later, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No. 5 sent a letter, dated 03.05.2021, to respondent No.3 and intimated that the petitioner had not attended the hearing. (ii) Respondent No. 6 filed another petition dated 09.08.2021 in Spandana Program, and thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued notice to respondent No.5 to cancel the building plan approval dated 16.08.2021. Since there was no response from the Panchayath Secretary of respondent No. 5, respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice dated 29.10.2021. Later, the issue was placed in the General Body meeting, whereby the majority of the body concluded that the building plan approval is liable to be cancelled. However, Sarpach did not sign the proceedings due to the pendency of the suit. As per the report submitted by the Extension Officer (P.R. & RD), Denkada, respondent No. 3 issued a direction to the Panchayat Secretary to cancel the plan approval only. However, no order was passed by respondent No. 5. (iii) The District Panchayat Officer is empowered under Rule 32 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules’), to issue necessary instructions to the executive authority in respect of unauthorised constructions. The letter dated 16.08.2021 was issued by exercising jurisdiction under Rule 32(2) of the Rules. Respondent No. 3 has not initiated any action against the petitioner. Petitioner never submitted any application to construct a house in survey No.54/12, and in fact, the petitioner purchased land in survey No.54/12 after the plan was approved, for the extent in survey No.54/13. Eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.6 filed a separate counter-affidavit. It was contented, inter alia, that respondent No.6 is the absolute owner of Ac.0-49 cents in survey No. 54 / 12 of Akkivaram village, Denkada Mandal. The petitioner obtained plan approval by misrepresenting the facts. Respondent No.6 made a complaint to the respondent authorities. As per the report submitted by the Extension Officer (PR & RD), Denkada, respondent No.3 issued a direction to the Grama Panchayat to cancel the approved plan. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the General Body; however, no orders were passed against the petitioner vis-à-vis the building permission, since the Sarpach has not signed the resolution. An ad interim injunction was granted in respect of 290.40 square yards in Survey No. 54/13 and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and the respective counter-affidavits. 7. The undisputed facts, as seen from the pleadings, are that the petitioner purchased 290.4 square yards in survey No.54/13 under a registered document dated 02.05.2015 and later purchased 338 square yards in survey No.54/12 under a registered document dated 23.07.2018 from one Meesala Rajamma, W/o late Appalanarayana and two others. The petitioner obtained permission vide B.R.No.3/2016, dated 05.03.2026, to construct a building in survey No.54/13. In the plan annexed to the permission, the extent of the site on the ground is shown as 445.91 metres in survey No.54/13. Due to civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6, the petitioner filed OS No. 680 of 2021 against respondent No. 6 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and an ad interim injunction was granted on 01.02.2022 in I.A.No.318 of 2021. 8. As seen from the averments, the petitioner did not mention in para No.4 of the affidavit regarding the extent of the area, for which the permission was granted to construct the building vide Ex.P1. However, as seen from the sketch filed along with Ex.P1, the extent of the land on the ground is shown as 445.91 square metres in Survey No.54/13. As per the sale deed dated 02.05.2015, the petitioner purchased 290.4 square yards in survey No.54/13. 9. The counter affidavit of respondent No.3 would disclose that the subject issue was placed before the General Body, and a meeting was conducted by the Grama Panchayat. However, no resolution was passed, cancelling the permission granted in favour of the petitioner, since the Sarpanch did not sign the proceedings. In fact, a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, discloses that the authority never interfered with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the building. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 3 and 5, at the behest of respondent No. 6 are attempting to demolish the building is misconceived, and thus, the interference of this Court is not warranted. 10. The suit O.S.No.680 of 2021 filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 6 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram is still pending. If the petitioner obtained a plan, without disclosing true facts, respondent No. 5 may initiate steps in accordance with the procedure mandated in the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, and the Rules made thereunder. Either respondent No.3 or respondent No.5 cannot interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property without following due procedure. 11. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondents 3 and 5 not to interfere with the structure bearing assessment No.817, situated in survey Nos.54/12 and 54/13, Akkivaram Village, Denkada Mandal, Visianagaram District, without following due procedure of law. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 08.04.2026 IKN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17590 of 2022 Date: 08.04.2026 IKN