£ APHC010499892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI rv. TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAP/TI WRIT APPEAL NOs: 9ffAND 9lf OF 2024^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 911 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15^of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24.07.2024 in WP No. 11940 of 2023, on the file of the High court. Between: 1. Alapati Venkata Sudhakar, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.16-26, Hasthinapuram, Devanagarapuri Panchayat, Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal Prakasam). Bapatici District (Old 2. Alapati Suresh Kumar, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 55 Occ: Business, years. R/o.D.No.16-26, Hasthinapuram, Devanagarapuri Panchayat, Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal Bapatic District (Old Prakasam). ...Petitioners,-— AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Princ pal Secretary to Government, Panchaytat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Bapatia District. 1. 2. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Bapatla District at Bapatla. 4. Ramakrishnapuram Gram Panchayat, Represented b/ its Panchayat Secretary, Ramakrishnapuram Gram Panchayat and '/illage, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. 5. Tahsildar, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 ' 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant the common Order dated 24.07.2024 in WP.No.11940 of 2023 including demolition of the Petitioners constructions in Ac.0.08 Cents situated in Sy. No.339/3, the land ad-measuring Ramakrishnapuram Gram Panchayat, Chirala Mandal pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ- RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 5:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI M SUDHIR SC FOR ZPP, MPP^ ANDGP APHC010499942024 WRIT APPEAL NO: 912 OF 2024 - Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.07.20^ in WP No. 11 ^8 of 2023 on the file of the High Court. Between: Alapati Venkata Sudhakar, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 55 Occ; Business, R/o.D.No.16-26, Hasthinapuram, Devanagarapuri 1. years Panchayat, Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District (Old Prakasam). 2. Alapati Suresh Kumar, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 48 years, Hasthinapuram, R/o.D.No.16-26, Occ. Insurance Agent, Devanagarapuri Panchayat, Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District (Old Prakasam). ...Petitioners^^ AND Aged about 72 years, Occ: Nirmala Kumari, D.No.5-21A, Sipaipate Village, 1. J Vijaya Prasad, S/o J.Wilson Rao Business, C/o. Ramakrishnapuram Panchayat, Chirala Mandal, Bapat a District. 2. T Anil Kumar, S/o T.Jaya Rao, Aged about 46 years, Occ; Business, Sipaipeta Village, Ramakrishnapuiam Panchayat, R/o.D.No.226, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. Aged about 50 years, Occ. RcimaKrishnapuram 3. K Syam Babu, S/o K.Sundara Rao Business, R/o. D.No.273, Sipaipeta Village, Panchayat, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. 4. K Ramesh, S/o Sundara Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, Ramakrishnapuram Panchayat, R/o.D.No.273, Sipaipata Village, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. 5. A Sukhesh, S/o A.Sukmar, R/o.D.No.273, Sipaipeta Village, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Panchaytat Raj and Rural Development Department, Occ: Business, Aged about 32 years Ramakrishnap.jram Panchayat, 6. Government, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Respondents/Writ Petitioner 7. The District Collector, Bapatla District. 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, Bapatia District. 9. The Tahsildar, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia District. 10.The Panchayat Secretary, Ramakrishnapuram Parichayat, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant the common Order dated 24.07.2024 in WP.No.11828 of 2023 including demolition of the Petitionerri constructions in Sy. No.339/3, Ac.0.08 Cents situated in . the land ad-measuring Ramakrishnapuram Gram Panchayat, Chirala Mandal pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: SRI N A RAMAC HANDRAr-" MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: GP FOR PANCHAYAI RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 10; SRI M SUDHIR SC FOR ZPP, MPP, - and GP The Court made the following Common order: 1 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010499892024 Sf;0; WRIT APPEAL NO: 911 of 2024 Along with W A.No.912 of 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO: 911 of 2024 ...Appellant(s) Alapati Venkata Sudhakar, and Others Vs. ...Respondent(s) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ********** M R K CHAKRAVAFITHY GP FOR PANG HAY <\T RAJ RURAL DEV, GP FOR REVIENUE, Mattegunta.Sudhir,s tanding Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,(;;ram Panchayats Advocate for Appellant: Advocate(s) for Respondent(s); CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : f € • W' 2 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the common order dated 24.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.11828 & 11940 of 2023, the appellants who the petitioners in W.P.No. 11940/2023 and the respondent nos.6 & 7 in W.P.No.11828/2023 preferred these intra Court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. were 2. In as much as the appellants are common and both the appeals stem out of common orders, they are heard together and are be ng disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The contents of writ petitions, in brief, are that: (a) The father of the appellants purchased the subject property through registered sale deed dated 12-09-1978. On his ^teath, it devolved upon the appellants and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment. The appellants made an application to the GramPanchayat (4*'^ respondent in W.P.No.11940 of 2023) for construction of he use in the subject property and the Gram Panchayat approved the same by passing resolution. Inspite of the same, as the tahsildar and others interfered with the construction activity of the appellants on the ground that the subject site public street, the appellants filed W.P.No.32779/2018 and this Court disposed of the same directing the respondents therein ne t to interfere with IS a 3 the construction of the site of the appellants, if the said cor struction is made in accordance with the approved plan and if the appellants have not encroached onto the road margin and if any complaints ure received with regard to the violation of the approved plan or encroachmnmts made by the appellants, the respondents shall take steps for demolition of the construction or for the eviction of the appellants, after following due procciiss of law. (b) Thereafter, the appellants started construction of the house and as the Gram Panchayat, at the instance of the Tahsildar, has interfered with the said construction on the self same ground that the subjfiict site is a public street, the appellants filed a suit vide O.S.No.102 of 2019 which was decreed on 17.10.2022 declaring that the appellants are the absolute owners of the subject property and directed the respondents not to interfere in any manner, if any violation is found on the approval plan or any illegal encroachments, steps may be taken against the appellants. The said decree attained finality. (c) Pursuant to the said decree, the appellants again started construction work of house by raising pillars. While so, the iiame residents of Sipaipeta village, Ramakrishnapuram Panchayat liave made a representation to the Gram Panchayat dated 25.10.2022 allcjging that there is an access road in Sy.No.339/2,3, which is the approach road to reach the main road (Panchayat road) and the appellants have encr:)ached the same by constructing house and requested for removal of such road encroachment 4 and alleging non-consideration of the said representstion, they filed WP.No.11828 of 2023. Meanwhile, upon the said representation dated 25.10.2022, the Gram Panchayat issued notice dated 15.12.2022 to the appellants and directed them to appear with all the relevant documents and accordingly the appellants submitted their explanation on 21.12.2022. Inspite of the same, the Gram Panchayat and the Tahsildar repeatedly interfered with the ongoing (d) construction in the subject property/site, with an intention to demolish the house and handover the same for the construction of the community building and questioning the illegal interference, the appellants filed i/V.P.No.11940 of 2023. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in (e) W.P.No.11828 of 2023 dated 09.05.2023, the Mandsil Surveyor has conducted a survey on 14.06.2023 in the presence of all the concerned including appellants and identified that the appellants hac encroached the road margin to an extent of Ac.0.04 72 cents. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by common order dated (f) 24.07.2024 directing the Gram Panchayat to proceed wiih the enquiry in order to remove the encroachment of road margin in an extent of Ac.0.04 72 cents strictly in accordance with law, within prescribed time. Challenging the said impugned order, the appellants have (g) preferred these Intra Court appeals. 6 Gram Panchayat to remove encroachments made on road margin. He would ^^^f^urther contend that the learned single judge had rightly dis:)osed of the writ petitions directing Gram Panchayat to proceed with removal of encroachments after conducting enquiry. He would further contend that the impugned order does not require interference of this Court. The writ appeals are meritless and deserves dismissal and prayed to dismiss l;he writ appeals. Perused the record and considered the submission of both the learned 7. counsel. The material available on record would make it clsar that the writ 8. petitions were preceded by a suit filed by the appellants vide O.S.No.102 of 2019. The said suit was decreed declaring that the appellants are the absolute owners of the subject property and directed the re spondents not to interfere in any manner, if any violation is found on the approval plan or any illegal encroachments, steps may be taken against the appellants. Therefore, the Civil Court while declaring the title of the appellants over the suit schedule property, directed the defendants therein, who are none other than the official respondents in these appeals to take steps for demolition of the structures if any made by encroaching the public road. The said decree seems to have attained finality, however the same is not at :all an impediment to the official respondents for removing encroachments if any made by encroaching any public site. The material would furtlier disclose that pursuant to the interim direction given in W.P.No. 11828/2023, a survey was 7 conducted according to which an extent of Ac.0.04 1/2 cenis of road margin found to have encroached by the appellants. If that w as so, Section 53 and 98 of Panchayat Act, 1994 empowers the Gram Panchayat to remove encroachments, if any, made by the appellants on trie road margin. Therefore, initiation of action by the authorities for removal of encroachments made by the appellants on the road margin cannot be termcid as either illegal violative of the declaratory decree passed in favour of the appellants. Through the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had only directed to conduct an enquiry and to remove encroachments, if any, in accordance with law. The appellants will get ample opportunity to participate in the enquiry and submit an explanation enclosing all relevant documenis in relation to the disputed site to support their claim over it. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same does not need any interferance of this Court. The writ appeals being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. was or The Writ appeals vide W.A.No.911 & 912 of 202^!-, accordingly, are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- Wl. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to Sri. M R K Chakravarthy Advocate [OPUC]'" Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUTj One CC to Sri. N A Ramachandra Murthy Advocate [OPUC] ^ One CC to Sri. M Sudhir SC for ZPP, MPP and GP [OPUC] Two CD Copies GSC 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. HIGH COURT DATED:16/09/2025 COMMON ORDER WA NOS. 911 AND 912 OF 2024 5 23SEP2075 ^ ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE WAS WITHOUT COSTS