j APHC010242142024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SWJ: MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11948 OF 2024 ^ Between: Thota Hanumakumar, S/o. Manikyam, Aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.3-10, Totavaridibba, Pedacheruvu Vadda, Gudimellanka, Godavari District - 533 253. Malkipuram, East ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Amalapuram, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 3. The District Panchayat Officer DPO, Amalapuram, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. 4. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer MPDO, Malikipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 5. The Gudimellanka Grama Panchayat, Represented Secretary, Gudimellanka Village, Malikipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 6. The Executive Engineer Drains, Irrigation Department, B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 7. The Deputy Executive Engineer(t)rain^ Irrigation Department B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. by its Panchayat Amalapuram, Dr. Razole, Dr. 8. Thota Veera Venkata ‘ about 58 years, R/o. D.No.3-^ Ambedkar Konaseema District. 9. Thota Manikanta Lakshman D.No.3-8, Pedacheruvu, I Ambedkar Konaseema District. 10. Thota Venkateswara Rao, R/o. D.No.3-11, Thotavari B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Lakshmana Rao, Aged 7, Gudimellanka, Malikipuram Mandal, ( Dr. B.R. S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 28 Gudimellanka, Malikipuram Mandal, years, R/o. Dr. B.R. S/o. Lakshmana Rao, Aged about 61 years, ka, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. Veedhi, Gudimellan ...Respondents praying that in the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the affidavit filed therewith. circumstances stated i pleased to issue the High Court may be Writ of M, H Particularly a writ in the nature of andamus declaring the action of the preventing the illegal construction drain channel respondents No.2 to 7 in not of the respondents No.8 to 10 over the annexing part of the petitioners cents in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Ambedkar Konaseema District property admeasuring Ac.0.21 Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. by illegally dispossessing the petitioner from the said land as illegal, arbitrary and violatiave the Constitution of the India of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of and in violation of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and consequently direct the respondents No. 2 to 7 to remove the illegal constructions of the channel annexing part of the prevent and respondents No.8 to 10 over the drain petitioners property admeasuring Ac.0.21 cents Village, Malkipuram Mandal, in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Ambedkar Konaseema District. lA NO: 1 OF 9n9A Dr. B.R. in the'affldalnt —stances stated the affidavit filed ,n support of the petition, the High Court direct the respondents No.2 respondents No.8 to 10 property admeasuring Ac. 0.21 may be pleased to to 7 to prevent/stop the illegal constructions over the drain channel of the annexing part of the petitioners cents in Sy.No. 269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, pending disposal ^ of the above writ petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: 1. Thota Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Lakshmana Rao, Aged about 58 years, R/o. D.No.3-7, Gudimellanka Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 2. Thota Manikanta Lakshman, S/o. Venkateswara Rao Malikipuram OO yedfb, R/o. D.No.3-8, Pedacheruvu, Gudimellanka, Malikipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 3. Thota Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Lakshmana Rao, Aged about 61 years, R/o. D.No.3-11, Thotavari Veedhi, Gudimellanka, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. ...Petitioner/RR - 8 to 10 AND 1. Thota Hanumakumar, S/o. Manikyam D.No.3-10, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Gudimellanka, Totavaridibba, Pedacheruvu Vadda Malkipuram, East Godavari District - 533 253. ...1®* RespondentA/Vrit Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Amalapuram, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 4. The District Panchayat Officer DPO, Amalapuram, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 6. The Gudimellanka Grama Panchayat, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Gudimellanka Village, Malikipuram Mandal, Ambedkar Konaseema District. MPDO, Malikipuram Dr. B.R. 7. The Executive Engineer Drains, Irrigation Department, Amalapuram, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. 8. The Deputy Executive Engineer Drains, Irrigation Department, Razole, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. ...Respondents 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 granted in W.P. No. 11948 of 2024, dated 16-05-2024 and extended on 02-07-2024. lA NO: 1 OF 202.5 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 extend the interim order dated 16.05.2024 in WP.No. 11948 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! G R SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 5: SRI N SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents 6 & 7: GP FOR IRRIGATION Counsel for the Respondents 8, 9 & 10: SRI N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following order: to &CAD APHC010242142024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11948/2024 [3329] Between: ^ YFAR^ ''^ANIKYAM, aged about 38 totavaridibba, pedacheruvu DIST'r^6t 5^33 “^LKIPURAM, EAST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT RAJ, AMARAVATI 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER DPO DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR DISTRICT. ™^^^UDIMELLANKA grama PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GUDIMELLANKA VILLAGE DISTRICt'^^'^ '^^^^^'” ® KONASEEMA EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, KONASEEMA DISTRICT. AMALAPURAM, DR. B.R. AMALAPURAM MPDO, KONASEEMA 6. THE ENGINEER AMALAPURAM, DRAINS, IRRIGATION DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR 2 NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 7. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DRAINS. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. RAZOLE. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 8. THOTA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY. S/0. LAKSHMANA RAO. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. R/0. D.NO.3-7, GUDIMELLANKA, MALIKIPURAM MANUAL, AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. DR. B.R. 9. THOTA MANIKANTA LAKSHMAN, S/0. VENKATESWARA RAO, R/0. D.NO.3-8, PEDACHERUVU. MALIKIPURAM MANUAL, DR. B.R. AGED 28 YEARS GUDIMELLANKA. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 10.THOTA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/0. LAKSHMANA RAO, THOTAVARI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.3-11, VEEDHI, GUDIMELLANKA, MALKIPURAM MANUAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA 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 topleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 7 in not preventing the illegal construction of the respondents No.8 to 10 over the drain channel annexing part of the petitioners property admeasuring Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Konaseema District by illegally dispossessing the petitioner from the said land as illegal, arbitrary and violatiave of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of the India and in violation of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently direct the respondents. No. 2 to 7 to prevent and remove the illegal constructions of the respondents No.8 to 10 over the drain channel annexing part of the petitioners property admeasuring Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondents No.2 to 7 to prevent/stop the illegal constructions of the respondents No.8 to 10 over the drain channel annexing part of the petitioners property admeasuring Ac. 0.21 Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 3 NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 cents in Sy.No. 269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 condone the delay of 71 days in re-presenting LA.SR No. 47205 of 2024 in VA/P .No. 1104S of 2024 snd to p3ss lA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim order granted in W.P. No. 11948 of 2024, dated 16-05-2024 and extended on 02-07-2024 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be 16.05.2024 in WP No. 11948 of 2024 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G RSUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N SIVA REDDY 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3.GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following: pleased to extend the interim order dated 4 NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO,11948 OF 2024 ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 7 in not preventing the illegal construction of Respondent Nos.8 to 10 over the drain channel annexing part of the petitioner’s property admeasuring extent of Ac.0-21 cents in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District by illegally dispossessing the petitioner from the said land as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently, direct Respondent Nos.2 to 7 to prevent and remove the illegal constructions of Respondent Nos.8 to 10 over the drain channel annexing part of the petitioner’s property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-21 cents in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. an 2. The petitioner claims/asserts ownership and possession of a land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-21 cents in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. .The above said land was acquired through a registered Sale Deed vide Document No. 2820/2021 dated 5 NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 02.08.2021, from his rightful owner Smt. Adabala Vijayalakshmi. Smt. Adabala Vijayalakshmi herself purchased the property in a court auction held on 05.07.1999, conducted by the Senior Civil Judge, Razole, for valid consideration. The court passed an order on 15.09.1999, in E.P.No.13 of 1996 in O.S.No.86 of 1991, confirming the sale. After such confirmation of sale, the property was delivered to the petitioner’s vendor in accordance with law and drawn with specific boundaries as detailed in the Sale Certificate issued by the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. According to the Sale Certificate, the southern boundary of the land is described as a Drain Channel, a watercourse, which forms an integral part of the property sold to both the petitioner’s vendor and subsequently to the petitioner. The petitioner claims full ownership rights extending up to the drain bund. Survey stones mark the boundary along the drain bund, confirming the petitioner’s title. Additionally, coconut trees situated between the drain watercourse and the abutting road are included within the petitioner’s land. While so. Respondent Nos.8 to 10 alleged that they are owners of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in R.S.No.377/1, sub-divided as 377/1A out of Ac.0-92 cents in Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal. Respondent Nos.8 to 10 intended to construct a bridge/culvert in front of the petitioner’s property on the drain channel NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 and they claim that Respondent Nos.6 & 7 have granted permission for construction of culvert upon the drain channel for their ingress and egress, but the permission was not granted by the competent authorities i.e. Respondent - Gram Panchayat. Questioning the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 7 in not preventing the illegal construction of Respondent Nos.8 to 10 over the drain channel annexing part of the petitioner’s property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.269-8 of Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, said inaction under challenge in the the present writ petition is filed. 3. No counter affidavit was filed nor any written instructions were produced before this Court by the official respondents i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 7, but the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that no one has obtained any permission for such construction of similar culvert/sapta from Gram Pancahayt, including the petitioner. The subject channel is vested with the respondent, since it is an irrigation channel. 4. The unofficial respondents/Respondent Nos. 8 to 10, filed counter affidavit stating that Respondents 8 and 10 owned their respective residential houses situated within the vicinity of the house of the writ petitioner. They purchased a vacant site measuring Ac. 0.03 \ NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 cents in Survey No. 377-1A from the petitioner's elder paternal uncle for valuable consideration and have been in possession of the said site thereafter. Additionally, land to the extent of Ac. 0.072 cents stands in the name of Respondent No. 9, and another Ac. 0.072 cents in the name of Respondent No. 8. Respondents 8 and 9 are jointly using this land as an joint access passage to their respective houses, enabling them to reach the main road by crossing a drainage canal situated between their site and the road. The irrigation drain, locally known "Pemula Kaluva Minor Drain," flows east to west, abutting the road. To access the main road. Respondents 8 and 9 necessarily have to this drainage channel. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his brother had already constructed unauthorised culverts across the same drainage canal/channel in front of their houses to have access to the main road. Similarly, Respondents 8 and 10 must also cross the subject drain to have access to the main road from the joint site located between the houses of the petitioner and his elder brother. The Executive Engineer of the Drainage Division as cross Kakinada, vide proceedings dated 10.03.2024, granted permission for the construction of a temporary single-lane bridge over the Pemula Kaluva Minor Drain at KM 3.00. However, upon commencement of construction by Respondents 8 to 10, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court and obtained an interim order on 16.05.2024. Respondent Nos.8 to 10 also NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 submit that the petitioner's site, located in Sy. No. 269-8, abuts the main road on its southern side. Therefore, it is factually incorrect and misleading to claim that the drain forms the southern boundary of his property. In reality, the drain lies on the opposite side of the R&B Road, which separates the petitioner’s land and the canal. This road connects Gudimellanka to Sivakoti Village, and is also referred to as the Mattaparru Road. Unless the petitioner claims ownership of the R&B Road itself, he cannot establish that his property extends up to the drain and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. During the hearing, Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under Section 100 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, no building or structure can be erected without prior written permission from the Executive Authority or its delegate, particularly on any sewer, drain, or on land that has been filled with waste or road sweepings. Accordingly, Respondents 8 to 10 cannot legally raise any construction over the drain in the absence of valid authorization/written permission from the Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel further argued that, as per Section 2(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the definition of "building" encompasses all types of structures, regardless of their use or materials along with their foundations, plinths, walls, roofs, chimneys, plumbing, projections, and 9 NV,J W.P.No.ll948of 2024 any enclosing walls or signage. Therefore, the construction undertaken by Respondents 8 to 10 falls squarely within the definition of a "building" and thus requires prior permission from the Gram Panchayat. In the absence of such permission, the ongoing construction is unlawful and must be restrained. In response, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 8 to 10, submitted that Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 are not constructing any permanent structure over the alleged drain. Instead, 6. they are building a culvert above the drain for the purpose of access, and that too after duly obtaining permission from the competent authority i.e. Irrigation Department, which has jurisdiction over the drain and its bunds. He further submits that the petitioner and his brother had earlier constructed similar culverts in front of their houses for their ingress and egress, without securing any permission whatsoever either from the Gram Panchayat or from the Irrigation Department. Therefore, the petitioner, having himself violated the law, is not entitled to make allegations against these respondents, who have followed due process. Given the facts and the lack of merit in the claim of the petitioner, the learned counsel requested this Court to dismiss writ petition with costs. 10 NV,J W,P.No.ll948 of 2024 7. Heard Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.8 to 10 and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, there is a drain/field channel flowing in front of the houses of the petitioner and Respondent Nos.8 to 10. 9. One of the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that, formation of bridge/culvert would fall within the definition of ‘building defined under Section 2(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. as 10. For better appreciation Section 2(3) of the Act is extracted hereunder: Building' includes a house, out house, shop - stable latrine, shed (other than a cattle shed in an agricultural land), hut, wall and any other such structure whether of bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material whatsoever. (M masonry. Hence, from the above definition, it is clear that, the term building comprises of house, shop and any other structure of masonry, bricks, wood, metal etc, but not culvert or cause way. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that building of culvert or cause way would fall within the definition of “building” as per Section 2(3) of the A.P. •Panchayat Raj Act, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention of the 11. 11 NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. 12. The other contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Respondent Nos.8 to 10 are bound to obtain permission of building on sewer, drain etc, as per Section 100 of the A.P. Panchyat Raj Act. 1994, and Respondent No.5 is bound to take action and prevent the illegal constructions. 13. Section 100 of the A.P. Panchyat Raj Act, 1994 reads as follows; 100. Prohibition of building on sewer, drain etc., without permission - (1) No building shall be erected without the written permission of the executive authority or any person authorised by such executive authority, over any sewer or drain or any part of sewer or drain or upon any ground which has been covered, raised or levelled wholly or in part by road sweepings or other rubbish. (2) The executive authority or the person authorised by him as aforesaid may, by notice, require any person who has erected a building without such permission or in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with the terms of such permission, to demolish the same. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that permission is required from the Gram panchayat for construction of culvert, but the subject drain/field channels is under 14. 12 NV,J W.P.No.11948 of 2024 the control and maintenance of Department of Irrigation, who is the competent authority to allow any permissions over and above the drain to make any construction. The properties which were situated within the gram panchayat will be exclusively controlled and maintained by the gram panchayat. Similarly, the drain/field channels which are passing/flowing through the villages though they are passing through the habitation, they are vested with the Irrigation Department as per Irrigation and Command Area Development Act. In the present case, the Executive Engineer who is the competent authority, has rightly granted permission in favour of Respondent No. 10 for construction of temporary single lane bridge on Pemula Kaluva minor drain, with certain conditions. Hence the permission granted by Respondent No.6 cannot be set at naught. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. \ \ I , even 15. In view of the my foregoing discussion, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for, as such the writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach competent authority for redressal of his claim, in accordance with law, if advised. No costs. 13 NV,J W.P.No.ll948of 2024 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, 17. shall also stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REC^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to Sri G R Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri N Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri N Srihari, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Irrigation & CAD, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:28/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 11948 OF 2024 ^ 0 2 SEP 2025 I€: DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS