APHC010335692019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15913/2019 Between: 1. BOODATI GANDHI, (DIED), S/O.RAMALCRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O.NAGULADEVUNIPADU VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BOODATI BHOGESWARI, W/O LATE BOODATI GANDHI,AGED 57 YEARS,OCC CULTIVATION,R/O NAGULADEVUNIPADU VILLAGE, DENDULUR MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. BOODATI LITISH BABU, S/O LATE BOODATI GANDHI,, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 4-54-485, JAGATGIRI GUTTA, QUTUBULLAPUR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA. 4. BOODATI SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY, S/O LATE BOODATI GANDHI, ASKED 34 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.3-136/2, AKKIREDDYGUDEM VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PETITIONER NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS TO THE DECEASED SOLE WRIT PETITIONER AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 11.08.2025 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO. 1 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, 2 AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU 3. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY CUM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GALAYAGUDEM PANCHAYAT, DENDULURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. GORLA SATYANARAYANA, S/O, VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O.NAGULADEVUNIPADU VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDAL. WEST GODAVARI. 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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 2 to 4 on my representation dated 22.09.2019 submitted for prevention of illegal construction being undertaken by 5th respondent without obtaining any lawful permission and plan in the site of Ac.0.20 cents covered by Sy.No.60/2 of Naguladevunipadu Village in Denduluru Marklal of West Godavari District, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts to Non-Discharge of legal obligation conferred on respondents under the provisions the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 rules framed there under and offends Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to prevent 5th respondent from undertaking said illegal construction without obtaining any plan a-Ai permission and by removing already constructed portion thereof and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider and initiate necessary action on my representation dt.22.09.2019 submitted for prevention of illegal and unauthorized construction of Shed being undertaken by the 5th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to stop illegal construction being carried on in site of Ac.0.20 cents covered by Sy.No.60/2 of 3 Naguladevunipadu Village in Denduluru Mandal of West Godavari District, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 permit the petitioners to come on record as parties/petitioners 2 to 4 per LRs of deceased sole Writ Petitioner to the main Writ Petition in W.P No. 15913 of 2019 and pending Interlocutory Applications therein, in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15913/2019 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 inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 4 on petitioner’s representation dated 22.09.2019 submitted for prevention of illegal construction being undertaken by 5th respondent without obtaining any lawful permission and plan in the site of Ac.0.20 cents covered by Sy.No.60/2 of Naguladevunipadu Village in Denduluru Marklal of West Godavari District, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts to Non-Discharge of legal obligation conferred on respondents under the provisions the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 rules framed there under and offends Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to prevent 5th respondent from undertaking said illegal construction without obtaining any plan and permission and by removing already constructed portion thereof and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 5th respondent without there being any permission, proceeding with the construction in the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.60/2 of Naguladevunipadu Village, Denduluru Mandal, West 5 Godavari District. He further submits that the 1st petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.09.2019 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein complaining that respondent No.5 is making construction at the disputed property i.e., Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.60/2 without having proper approval/permission and prayed not to allow any construction without there being any proper permission. But, the respondents neither initiated any action nor considered the said representation. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 furnished written instructions issued by the 2nd respondent dated 12.08.2025, wherein it is stated as follow: “It is submitted that, the contention of the petitioner is not correct. As per the report submitted by the Village Revenue Officer and revenue records, both the lands in R.S.No.60/2 and land in RS NO.60/3 in an extent of Ac.1.68 cents of Naguladevipadu Village are cultivable lands. It is submitted that an extent of land Ac.0.20 cents belongs to Boyapati Madhavarao and an extent of Ac.1.68 cents belongs to Sri Bhoodati Phakir S/o. Radhakrishnamurthy. As per the contention of the petitioner herein that there is a joint passage. There is dispute between the petitioner and his brothers from long back and they approached the Hon’ble Courts. O.S.No.853/2001 filed before the Hon’ble 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Eluru and the same was disposed against the present petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the orders of the Hon’ble 1st Additional 6 Junior Civil Judge Court, Eluru the present petitioner filed appeal before the Hon’ble II Additional District Judge, Eluru against the orders dated 12.08.2004 in O.S.No.853/2001. The said appeal was also dismissed with the orders confirming the orders of the lower court. It is further submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner submitted representation requesting to state whether the 5th respondent herein have taken any permission for constructing of structure in the aid land in question. Immediately after receipt of representation of the petitioner, the Panchayat Secretary i.e., the 4th respondent was enquired into the contents and explained the same to the petitioner and he himself acknowledged the same. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents not responded on his request is not correct and the petitioner misrepresented the Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that, the petitioner has filed Second Appeal No.978/2012 has been pending before the Hon’ble High Court regarding his passage right. No documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner to the Gram Panchayat. The 4th respondent submitted that the Gram Panchayat was not given any permission to the construction. The 4th respondent visited the construction land and it is a temporary one. The 5th respondent or any other person for construction of shed in the site is in question. As there is writ petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court these respondents could not able to intervene or take coercive steps for removal of the shed. The 5th respondent herein stated that it is not an objectionable construction. Further he requested to 7 regulate the same or he will remove the structure after the finalization of 2nd appeal pending before the Hon’ble High Court filed by the petitioner.” 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that there are civil disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent in respect of the subject land and in which respondent No.5 was declared as original owner by way of decree and judgment by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. But, the 1st petitioner assailed the judgment passed in First Appeal by way of Second Appeal before this Court and the same is pending for consideration. He further submits that the construction made by respondent No.5 i.e., ACC roof shed is temporary in nature. In view of the pending cases before the Trial Court as well as this Court, the 4th respondent is unable to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record and the written instructions issued by respondent No.2, it appears that there are civil disputes between the 1st petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.5 in respect of the subject property situated at Sy.Nos.60/2 and 60/3. The trial court as well as lower appellate Court confers title in favour of respondent No.5 against the 1st petitioner. Further it is a fact that the 1st petitioner also assailed the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court by way of Second 8 Appeal on the file of this Court and the same is pending for consideration. The allegation of the 1st petitioner is that without there being any approval or permission, the 5th respondent is carrying illegal construction at the subject property in Sy.No.60/2 and the same cannot be permitted is valid. It is further observed that unless and until if, there is any approval, nobody can be permitted to make construction. As per the instructions of respondent No.2, the subject land in Sy.No.60/2 is a revenue land and any constructions by way of farm houses or cattle sheds or temporary sheds would not come under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat to regulate the constructions as if they were made within the Gram Panchaya habitation limits. However, respondent No.4 categorically stated that if the subject construction is within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, respondent No.4 will proceed further in accordance with law. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, the claim of the petitioners that without approval of the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.5 is proceeding with the construction cannot be interfered, since the construction is on the revenue land which is not within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. However, the petitioners are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 2200..0088..22002255 TTPPSS 10 250 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:15913 of 2019 2200..0088..22002255 TTPPSS