APHC010292972020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SAMPATHIRAO SURYA RAJU,, S/O KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 3. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, TEKKALI TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, RAGHUNATHAPURAM, TEKKALI TOWN/ MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 19372/2020 SAMPATHIRAO SURYA RAJU,, S/O KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, TEKKALI TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, RAGHUNATHAPURAM, TEKKALI TOWN/ MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA SAMPATHIRAO SURYA RAJU,, S/O KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, ...PETITIONER ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, TEKKALI TOWN, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, RAGHUNATHAPURAM, TEKKALI TOWN/ MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Y. KOTESWARA RAO (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Mohammad Nayab Rasool, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P. Chaitanya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Panchayat Secretary of Tekkali Gram Panchayat. The impugned Order would indicate that the request of the Petitioner seeking approval of the Building Plan cannot be considered due to the pendency of W.P.No.8365 of 2019 on the file of this Court. 3. Upon verification by this Court, it is noticed that W.P.No.8365 of 2019 was allowed on 08.02.2021 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The said Order dated 08.02.2021 in W.P.No.8365 of 2019 is now on record. The said Order would indicate that W.P.No.8365 of 2019 was allowed with certain directions: “Hence, for all the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there shall be a direction to the 1st to 5th respondents to take immediate steps to remove the construction/building made by the unofficial respondents which contrary to the rules and without any approval. Permission as far as the encroachment is concerned there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to get the properties surveyed with the available records, including the registered sale deeds of the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. Panchayat records should also be verified in this process. If the encroachment is made on a public road the 2nd to 4th respondents are given a direction to remove the encroachments on the road/street also. The petitioner and the unofficial respondents are directed to cooperate in the survey. 3 This entire exercise of survey etc., should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions.” 4. Admittedly, the Impugned Order in this Writ Petition was passed on 11.10.2019, and the subsequent development is that W.P.No.8365 of 2019 was allowed by an Order of this Court dated 08.02.2021. 5. On a query made by this Court to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner whether the Petitioner had submitted a copy of the Order dated 08.02.2021 in W.P.No.8365 of 2019, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not approached the Authorities and has not informed them about the disposal of the Writ Petition. 6. In light of these facts, it is appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition without going into the merits, by directing the Petitioner to approach the Respondent Authorities and inform them about the subsequent developments and disposal of W.P.No.8365 of 2019 on 08.02.2021, and also furnish a copy of the said Order. 7. Upon furnishing of such Order, the Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the Applications submitted by the Petitioner seeking approval of the Building Plan in accordance with law, within a reasonable time and communicate such Order to the Petitioner forthwith for effective compliance. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 03.07.2025 DSV 4 83 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.19372 of 2020 03.07.2025 DSV 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.19372 of 2020 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 09. 03.07.2025 GRKP, J Writ Petition is disposed of. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 6