APHC010244582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13077/2025 Between: Angarapu Nageswara Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13077/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3, Tahsildhar in interference into the civil disputes in connection with Appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2015 on the file of the IX AddI District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his property in an extent of 334 sq. yards of house and site bearing D.N.4-139 of Vageswarapuram, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violation of principles of the settles principles of law and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 not interfere with the peaceful possession of the his property in an extent of 334 sq. yards of house and site bearing D.No.4-139 of Vageswarapuram, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District and pass such other order.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent herein in respect of the subject land at D.No.4-139 of Vageswarapuram, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. While so, to resolve their dispute the 5th respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed in favour of the 5th respondent herein. 3 Against which, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal on the file of IX Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, which also confirmed the judgment and decree in favour of the 5th respondent herein and against the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner herein preferred second appeal before this Court, which is pending for consideration. Pending consideration of the second appeal, the petitioner is trying to make construction at the subject land which is in his possession, whileso, the 3rd respondent herein is interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and acting as an execution court, which is unwarranted and the said action of the 3rd respondent is contrary to the settled legal jurisprudence and principles of law of administration. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that making new constructions by the petitioner without valid permission at subject suit schedule land is contrary to the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. He further submits that since it is in habitation area, the 3rd respondent has no businesses/authority to interfere with the subject property. He further submits that the 4th respondent/Grampanchayat is not interfering as alleged by the petitioner, since the subject matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Court. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th 4 respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Initially the Court below passed judgment and decree in favour of the 5th respondent herein in respect of the subject land and the same was also confirmed in first appeal. Due to mere pendency of the Second Appeal, the petitioner is not entitled to trespass the rights of the 5th respondent herein, which were crystalized by way of judgment and decree. However, the entire dispute is civil in nature and the respondents are expressing that they are not interfering with the subject land, since there is a civil dispute pending adjudication between both the parties. Therefore the petitioner should avail alternative remedy to invoke jurisdiction at the Court, where the civil proceedings are pending between the parties. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 16.06.2025 TTPPSS 5 36 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13077/2025 16.06.2025 TTPPSS