1 APHC010247582020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16275/2020 Between: 1. BHAVIRI KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O. LATE. SANYASI AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O PLOT NO.67 AND 68, PATRUNIVALASA PANCHAYATI SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL ,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 2. DUDDU GOVINDHA RAO, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. EX-SERVICE MEN, R/O PLOT NO.88AND 89, CHAPRAM PANCHAYATI, (BALAGA RURAL) SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. UNDRALA RANGA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMULU, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. CIVIL ENGINEER, R/O NOT NO.65, PATRUNIVALASA PANCHAYATI SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL ,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. MULA RULUNINI,, W/O.KESAVAYYA, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O PLOT NO.69, PATRUNIVALASA PANCHAYATI SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL ,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 5. JAGILINKI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. TENT HOUSE BUSINESS, R/O PLOT 2 NO.64, PATRUNIVALASA PANCHAYATI, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL , SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYT RAJ, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHYAT RAJ, ZILLAPARISHAT COMPOUND, SRIKAKULAM, 4. PATRUNIVALASA PANCHAYATI, REP BY ITS SECRETARY GRAMA SACHIVALAYAM, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT -532401 5. CHAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GRAMA SACHIVALAYAM,SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM 7. M/S SUPRAJA SUNCITY LAY OUT, REP. BY ITS DIRECTORKARRI ESWAR REDDY, DOOR NO. 2-2-114/1, BHADRAMMA TEMPLE,IISIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM. ...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 a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in constructing Grama Sachivalyam, Rytu bharosa kendram and Health Center on the open area situated at Patrunivalasa Panchayati, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District in the lay out bearing Proceedings 3 bearing No. RC No 25329/11/PLG /L9 dated 24-05-2012 issued by 6th respondent in favour of 7th respondent as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of Natural justice besides violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 not to make any constructions in the open area situated at Patrunivalasa Panchayati , Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District in the lay out bearing Proceedings bearing No. RC No 25329/11/PLG /L9 dated 24-05- 2012 issued by 6th respondent in favour of 7th respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.16275 of 2020 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents and perused the material placed on record. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are trying to make construction of Gram Sachivalayam, Rytu Bharosa Kendram and Health Center at the open space of layout situated at Patrunivalasa Panchayati, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District sanctioned by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th Respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is settled proposition of law that as layout open space cannot be converted for any other purpose except for the purpose of a park and play-ground, the proposed construction of public utility services by way of Gram Sachivalayam, Rytu Bharosa Kendram and Health Center cannot be permitted which is 5 contrary to law. As such, the proposed action of the respondents is contrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the subject Patrunivalasa Gram Panchayat and Chapuram Grama Panchayats were merged with Srikakulam Municipal Urban Development Authority. Therefore, the construction of Gram Sachivalayam may not be necessary. 4. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and in view of merger of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 with Srikakulam Municipal Urban Development Authority, and since the de-notification of Respondents Gram Panchayats, the construction of Gram Sachivalayam need not necessary. 5. In view of the observations made as above, no further orders are required to pass in the matter and accordingly the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dt: 18.09.2025 krk 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.16275 of 2020 Dt: 18.09.2025 krk 115