APHC010287172023 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: 14684/2023 Between: 1. THE SNEHAMITRA AUTO OWNERS AND UNION ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT N.VENKATESWARLU, S/O. N. POWLU, D.NO. 10-70/1, PIPPARA VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE PIPPARA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PIPPARA VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAMMANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. M SRIDEVI, D/O M SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, PIPPARA VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAMMANDAL, WEST GODAVARI 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 SRS,J W.P.No.14684 of 2023 pleased to issue a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Wirt, Direction or Order declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing the petitioner to remove shed i.e. auto stand without passing orders any orders on the notice dated 5.6.2023 and 13.4.2023 by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner association dated 6.06.2023 as illegal and arbitrary and violative of article 14,16 and 300-A of Constitution and consequently set a side notice issued by the 3rd respondent and pass 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 direct the 3rd respondent not to demolish the auto stand, D.No. 10-70/1, Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District and pass IA NO: 2 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 stay order granted WP 14684 of 2023 on 23-06-2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 2. VARA LAKSHMI CHEKURI 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1 and 2; Sri SRS,J W.P.No.14684 of 2023 Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 and Ms. K. Shalini, learned counsel representing Smt. Ch.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. Challenging the notices, dated 13.04.2023 and 05.06.2023 (Exs.P1 and P2) issued by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3, directing the petitioner to remove the shed i.e. auto stand, the above writ petition was filed. 3. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the in affidavit, are that the petitioner is an association, registered as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001, and its members have been eking out their livelihood by running autos. The members of the petitioner association recently erected a small statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the auto stand. Acting upon the complaint made by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 issued notices Exs.P1 and P2. The members of the petitioner association submitted an explanation dated 06.06.2023 (Ex.P3). However, without considering the explanation, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 attempted to remove the shed erected by the members of the petitioner association. 4. An interim order was passed on 23.06.2023, and the same is subsisting. 5. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. It was contended, inter alia, that the members of the petitioner association occupied the land and constructed an asbestos shed at the road margin in survey No.310/1, Pippara Village. Later, the members constructed an iron sheet shed obstructing the passage of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 gave a complaint in Spandana on 03.04.2023, to remove the encroachment made in the subject land. Thereafter, a survey was conducted on 24.05.2023. As per the survey, the petitioner‟s association constructed an iron sheet shed in front of the land of respondent No.4, on the road margin in the subject survey SRS,J W.P.No.14684 of 2023 number. Pursuant thereto, a notice, Ex.P1 was issued, calling upon the members of the petitioner association to submit documents. Since no explanation was submitted, Ex.P2, notice was issued. Regarding removal of the statues, the Tahsildar is the competent authority as per G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 18.02.2013. 6. A separate counter was filed by respondent No.4. It was contended, inter alia, that respondent No.4 got Ac.00-20 cents of land in R.S.No.310/1, Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, from her father M. Subba Raju by way of Pasupu Kumkuma, at the time of her marriage, and she is the absolute owner and possessor of the said land. The Government issued a house site and allotted the said land in the year 1995. Out of Ac.00-20 cents, respondent No.4 gave Ac.00-05 cents to the Gram Panchayat for laying a water pipeline. In the remaining Ac.0-15 cents, respondent No.4 constructed a shed and has been living therein. In front of the shed/house, the petitioner‟s association constructed a shed encroaching on part of the land of respondent No.4 and obstructing the passage. Respondent No.4 approached the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the members of the petitioner‟s association, instead of removing the shed, suddenly erected a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the iron shed, without obtaining permission. On the complaint by respondent No.4 in spandana, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 issued notices. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit and counter-affidavits. 8. The point for consideration is whether the notices impugned, Exs.P1 and P2, are legally sustainable? Page 5 of 8 SRS,J W.P.No.14684 of 2023 9. As seen from the material, in pursuance of the complaint made by respondent No.4, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 issued Ex.P1, notice, to the petitioner‟s association, calling upon them to submit documents regarding the construction of the structure. Thereafter, Ex.P2, notice was issued pointing out a survey and construction of the shed by encroaching upon part of the land belonging to respondent No.4. The members of the petitioner‟s association submitted the explanation (Ex.P3). As seen from the explanation, initially, they constructed a thatched shed which collapsed due to a heavy gale. Thereafter, an asbestos shed was constructed, and the members of the association erected a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on 12.04.2023 and celebrated the birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on 14.04.2023. 10. It is appropriate to mention here that as per Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short „the Act‟), no piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without obtaining permission of the Gram Panchayat. 11. In the case at hand, as seen from Exs.P1 to P3, a shed was constructed by the members of the petitioner‟s association. However, as per the explanation, Ex.P3, it seems the permission required under Section 121 of the Act was not obtained. This Court is not going into that aspect at this juncture, since the proper authority to deal with the issue is the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3. 12. Regarding the erection of a statue, on the road margin, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 18.02.2013 and set out the procedure. In fact, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (SLP No.8519 of 2006), observed that the State Government shall not grant any SRS,J W.P.No.14684 of 2023 permission for the installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. 13. The competent authorities to deal with this issue are the revenue authorities. 14. Insofar as the grievance of respondent No.4 that the petitioner‟s association constructed the shed between the road margin and their house, causing obstruction, the issue is no longer res integra. 15. In Sataraboyina Someswara Rao v. Sangasetti Tirupathamma1, it was observed as follows: “In my opinion, the said principle also involves public policy. No person can be allowed to occupy a portion of a public road, a highway, or even a public pathway, and argue that even after his encroachment there is sufficient space left for public to pass by. He cannot be the judge of the requirements of the public, nor can he decide for himself what extent must be left for public use and what extent must be occupied by him. At this rate, anybody will be free to occupy a portion of such public streets, highways and roads with the specious argument that there is still space left for public to pass by. Slowly these encroachments may become permanent. It is evident that such a course cannot be permitted. It is true that Section 39 expressly speaks of a discretion in the court in the matter of granting a mandatory injunction; but, the said discretion has to be exercised in accordance with law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case. May be that granting a mandatory injunction would result in eviction of the poor people living in the huts, or the displacement of the school which is said to be running there for the last several decades; but that can be taken care of by making appropriate directions.” 16. Thus, as seen from the observations referred to supra, it is clear that in respect of a public road or highway or a public pathway, every member of the 1 1989 (1) ALT 36 SRS,J W.P.No.14684 of 2023 public has the right to use the land and no person can be allowed to occupy the portion of such public road, highway or pathway. The respondents are obligated to protect the public's rights. 17. In the case at hand, the members of the petitioner association submitted an explanation, Ex.P3. Hence, without touching the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner association and pass a reasoned order duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the members of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4, as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 18. Regarding the erection of the statue, the revenue authorities i.e. the learned District Collector or Tahsildar concerned, shall act in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013. Observations, if any, made in the order may not influence the Panchayat Secretary while passing a reasoned order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 08.04.2026 IKN SRS,J W.P.No.14684 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14684 of 2023 Date: 08.04.2026 IKN