APHC010421752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21461/2025 Between: 1. KETHA PARVATHI, W/O. KETHA NAGESWARARAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.H.NO.7-124, B C COLONY, PIPPARA VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PACHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (PR AND RD) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARM DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE PIPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PIPPARA VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. INDUKURI PRAKASH, S/O VIJAYA RAMA RAJU, AGE NOT KNOWN, C/O ANNAPURNA NURSING HOME PIPPARA VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 NV,J W.P.No.21461 of 2025 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.05/2023 dated 31.07.2025 on the instigation of the 6th respondent, seeking an explanation as the petitioners ownership of the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-015 cents situated in Sy.No.310-2B of Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, failing which action will be taken against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority, without jurisdiction, null and void, mala fide, violative of provisions of AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and rules made there under and contrary to Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set- aside the proceedings vide Rc.No.05/2023 dated 31.07.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s peaceful possession of the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-015 cents situated in Sy.No.310-2B of Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, pending the above Writ Petitionand pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 NV,J W.P.No.21461 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.21461 OF 2025 ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.05/2023 dated 31.07.2025 and consequently to set aside the same. 2. Sri M. K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has encroached upon a portion of land measuring Ac.0-015 cents in Survey No. 310-2B, situated at Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, and subsequently constructed a tin shed thereon. Thereafter, the petitioner leased the said land to one P. Prasad. Respondent No.4 - the Gram Panchayat, issued a notice dated 31.07.2025 to P. Prasad, who is merely a tenant and not the actual owner or occupier of the subject property. The rightful owner and occupier of the land in question is the petitioner herein. As such, issuance of notice to the tenant, instead of the petitioner, is contrary to law. Questioning the said notice dated 31.07.2025, the present writ petition is filed. 4 NV,J W.P.No.21461 of 2025 3. Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4 – Pippara Grama Panchayat, furnished written instructions dated 12.08.2025 received from the Panchayat Secretary, Pippara and submits that W.P. (PIL) No.144 of 2025 was filed alleging encroachments on the public road and road margins in Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal. It was contended therein that, despite earlier eviction from the road margins, the same individuals have re-encroached upon the same location. In view of the same, this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 06.08.2025, issued notices to all individuals alleged to have encroached upon the road, which is intended to facilitate the free flow of traffic and to reduce congestion. 4. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that service of notice on the tenant of the petitioner amounts to deemed service on the owner. The impugned notice dated 31.07.2025 was issued pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court. Since the petitioner is one of the alleged encroachers of the road margin, Respondent No.4 has every right to initiate action for removal of such encroachments, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. He further submits that, despite 5 NV,J W.P.No.21461 of 2025 receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri M.K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4/Gram Panchayat and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.4 – Pippara Grama Panchayat – issued a notice dated 31.07.2025 to one P. Prasad, who is admittedly the tenant of the petitioner, directing for removal of the alleged encroachment from the subject property. The petitioner, in her writ affidavit, has categorically admitted that her late husband had encroached upon the subject land nearly seven decades ago and thereafter leased out the said property to the said P. Prasad. It is further stated that, upon the demise of her husband, the petitioner assumed possession of the said premises. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice was not served on her, but instead on her tenant, despite her being the present owner and occupier of the subject property. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is settled law that serving of notice to inmate of the house or admitted tenant is to be considered deemed service. Be that as it may, this Court 6 NV,J W.P.No.21461 of 2025 is of the opinion that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to submit her explanation before Respondent No.4. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to submit her explanation or objections, if any, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such explanation, Respondent No.4 shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 8. Till such time appropriate orders are passed by Respondent No.4, status quo as on today with regard to possession of the subject property shall be maintained by all parties concerned. 9. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 12.08.2025 SP 7 NV,J W.P.No.21461 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO. 21461 OF 2025 Date: 12.08.2025 W SP