APHC010140722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 7200/2025 Between: 1. BAKI DURGAPPALA REDDY, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KOTTAVEEDHI, THANEM VILLAGE,PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. BAKI GOPI, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MAIN VEEDHI, THANEM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. . 3. BAKI VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MAIN VEEDHI, THANEM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. BAKI SAI BABU, S/O. PAIDITALLI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KOTTAVEEDHI, THANEM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPBY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT PROGRAM COORDINATOR, ,MGNREGS, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. 2 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWAMA, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL PARITSHAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/ PROGRAM OFFICER, MGNREGS, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. BANAMGRAMAPANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS., PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, THANEMVILLAGE, BANAM GP, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. BAKI SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. PAIDITALLI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. THANEM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 20.03.2025, Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO), along with certain documents and a map. 3. Para 4 of the Written Instructions would indicate that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) has already requested the Tahsildar to conduct a Survey in response to the Representations submitted by the Writ 3 Petitioner and has forwarded a copy of the Report to the MPDO. Subsequently, the Survey Report was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO). 4. It is stated in the said para 4 of the Written Instructions that in terms of the Survey Report, road was laid only in the area belonging to Gramakantam which has been classified as Road. It has been categorically stated in this paragraph that road has not been laid in Zeroyati land. 5. Having considered the contents of the Written Instructions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition at the admission stage without going into merit, directing the Writ Petitioner to avail other remedies as available to him under law, if he is of the opinion that the road has been laid in the land belonging to him. 6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 02.04.2025 DSV