APHC010380742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19259/2025 Between: 1. JAVVADIA TULASI RAO, S/O.AVATARAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.4-843-6, HANUMAN CENTER, RAJUPETA, MACHILIPATNAM- 521 001, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELPOMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. . 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPTANAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. THE MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INAKUDURUPET POLICE STATION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 8. JAVVADI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.AVATARAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.4-843-6, HANUMAN CENTER, RAJUPETA MACHILIPATNAM-521 001, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 . SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings dated 16.07.2025, whereby the 6th respondent called upon the petitioner to remove the encroached portion of the road and the construction of an AC sheet roofed shed. The impugned proceedings also notified the petitioner that, in the event the encroachment is not removed, the respondent authorities would demolish the same and debit the expenses to the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the brother of the petitioner filed W.P. No. 19733 of 2024, alleging inaction on the part of the respondents in taking action on the petitioner’s complaint. The learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent No.6 therein to consider the petitioner’s complaint by duly issuing a notice to both the petitioner and the 8th respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the 8th respondent are brothers and have lodged complaints against each other regarding the alleged encroachment. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that the Tasildar Machilipatnam will take necessary action by following the due process of law. It is further submitted that the alleged encroachment was erected approximately twenty years ago, and any action proposed by the respondent authorities will be strictly in accordance with the due process of law. 4 4. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 28.07.2025 PNS 5