Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17222 (AP)

Hotha Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/15349/2020 · 2025-09-16

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010232862020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15349/2020 Between: 1. HOTHA SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY, S/O.SIVA RAMA SASTRY AGE 68 ADDRESS R/O.H.NO.6-10-4, T.NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM URBAN MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA 4. THE TURANGI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY TURANGI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 ...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 an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in trying to convert the land of an extent of Ac.0.69 cents on the southern side of TLP No.118/2017/R in RS No.111, 112/1, 112/3 and 112/4 of an total extent of Ac.6.90 cents in Turangi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District for any other purposes including laying of road as arbitrary, illegal and capricious and contrary to the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and Rule 11 (7) of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the land earmarked for park in TLP No.118/2017/R and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.15349 of 2020 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for 4th Respondent and perused the material placed on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are trying to convert the land in Sy.Nos.111, 112/1, 112/3 and 112/4 totaling to an extent of Ac.6.90 cents situated in Turangi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District and also further they are also trying to lay a road is arbitrary and contrary to Rule 11(7) of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. He further submits that the subject land was left for open space in a layout for park and other purposes but not for laying road or to convert for any other purposes. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in trying to convert the subject land and trying to lay a road through the subject land, the present Writ Petition is being filed. 4 3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for 4th Respondent filed counter, wherein it is stated as under: “5. It is submitted that eh averments made in para No.4 of the affidavit states that petitioner is the developer of the layouts under Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 23.07.2017 bearing Document No.6246 of 2017 has completed the layout and there are no objections whatsoever from any corner of the said layout. In the said layout on the Southern side land of an extnt of Ac.0.69 cents was left for open space for park purpose. The petitioner maintains the same for park of the said layout. The said park was bounded on the Southern side of the compound wall. In reply to this averment, the said common site which is open space for the public purpose / communal purpose is under the custody of Gram Panchayat. Therefore, it is true that the layout belongs to petitioner but the said common site which is open space for the public purpose / communal purpose has to be under the control of Gram Panchayat” 6. It is submitted that the averments made in para No.5 of the affidavit states that while the matter stood thus, the respondents herein without there being any intimation or acquisition of land or conversion of the part area into the purposes have trying to lay a road by dismantling the compound wall. No notice was issued either to the petitioner or owners of the property. In reply to this averment, the Gram Panchayat neither passed any resolution nor grant any permission for converting the said subject land nevertheless but the said common site which is open space for the public purpose / communal purpose has to be under the control of Gram Panchayat. Hence the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court upon apprehension. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the respondents have neither attempted to convert the subject land nor to lay any road through it, and that the petitioner’s claim is merely an apprehension. 5. Considering the submission made by both the counsel and material placed on record, in fact the subject land in Sy.Nos. 111, 112/1, 112/3 and 112/4 totaling to an extent of Ac.6.90 cents situated in Turangi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District is 5 earmarked as layout open space and is only meant for park or other play area but not for conversion for any other purposes. The allegation of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to lay a road through the subject land and convert the nature of the land and on the other hand on perusal of the counter as well as submissions made by learned Standing Counsel, it appears that the 4th Respondent is not taking any steps for conversion of the subject land or laying any road through it as alleged by the petitioner. 6. In view of clear and categorical submissions made by respondents through their counter, the alleged conversion of the subject land and laying of road through it, are only an apprehension on the part of the petitioner. Observing the same the Writ Petition is closed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 17.09.2025 krk 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.15349 of 2020 DT: 17.09.2025 krk 127