IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 39144 OF 2017 Between: Korukonda Subba Rao, S/o China Kondayya, aged 51 years, R/o D. No. 3-181, Korukonda Vari Peta, Pothavaram Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District ..Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Vangalapudi, Amaravathi, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. 2. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3. The Divisional Panchayati Raj Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 4. The Pothavaram Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Secretary, the Pothavaram 5. Nelapudi Veeranna, S/o Peda Venkanna, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation/Agriculture Labour, R/o D. No. 3-180, Korukonda Vari Peta Pothavaram Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Respondents 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the 4th respondent in not take appropriate action on the Reports dated 16-08-2017 and 17-11-2017 for the illegal and authorised of the 5th respondent by encroaching 1 1/2 cents on the West side of his construction .■property in between Door Nos. 3-181 and 3-180 in Sy. No. 239/1C on the Eastern Side of the Petitioner house in the Pothavaram Village of P.Gannavaram Mandal of East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and consequentially direct the action of the respondents, particularly the 4th respondent in Remove/ demolish illegal and authorised Construction of the 5th respondent in in between Door Nos. 3-181 and 3-180 in Sy. No. 239/IC on the Eastern Side of the Petitioner house in the Pothavaram Village of accordance of the P.Gannavaram Mandal of East Godavari District Provisions of Panchayat Raj Act. LA. NO: 1 OF 2017fWPMP. NO: 48563 OF 7ni7) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents, particularly the 4th respondent to Stop the illegal authrosied construction of the 5th respondent in between Loot. Nos.3-181 and 3-180 in Sy.No.239/1C on the Eastern Side of the Petitioner house in the Pothavaram Village of P.Gannavaram Mandal of East Godavari District pending the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K K DURGA PRASAD R®sPondent Nos. 1 ot 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ KUKAL DEV Respondent No. 4: SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO SC ZPP, MPP AND GP Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: J UGRANARASIMHA The Court made the following order: & FOR APHC010843442017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AliVlARAVATi (Specicil Original Jurisdiction) ■i [3206] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE 5RI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 39144/2017 Between: ...PETITIONER Korukonda Subba Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KKDURGA PF^ASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ASCBOSE 2.N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) 3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RUF^AL DEV (AP) 4.J UGRANARASIMHA The Court made the following order: The petitioner herein claims ownership and possession over 0.03 cents of land in Sy.No.239/1C, bearing house No.3-181, in Pothavaram Village, P. Gannavaram Mandal of East Godavari District, by way of a house site patta, dated 29.01.2007. The pestitioner claims that his neighbour on the eastern side, who is arrayed as 5'^ respondent herein, had encroached upon 2 RRR, J A W.P.No.39144of2017 his site as well as the common passage existing between his site and the site of the 5^^ respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner 2. had complained to respondents 2 to 4 about the encroachment of the land by the 5^*^ respondent over the passage which belongs to the Gram Panchayat as well as his land. The respondents did not take any action against the 5*^ respondent. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 2 to 4, to remove the encroachment of the 5^^ respondent. 3. The 5^*^ respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he has not encroached into any land and that he is within the boundaries of the 0.03 cents of land allotted to him, by way of dejed, dated 06.02.1934, executed by his grand father. The 5*^ respondent would also contend that there is a long history of harassment by the petitioner and his family members, wherein suits such as O.S.Nos.193 of 2001, 149 of 2005 & 95 of 2017, etc. have been filed against him before the Civil Courts. The 5^" respondent contends that all the suits have either been dismissed for default or on merits. The 5‘^ respondent contends that the petitioner, as part of the harassment, had obtained a patta in the year 2007, though he was not entitled for such patta. He would further contend that the description of the boundary of the land of the petitioner would go against the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. 4. 3 RRR,J W.P.No.39144 of 2017 The case of the 5*^ respondent is that according to the boundaries given in the patta, which was given in 1934, there fs a passage on the western side of the land belonging to the 5^^ respondent. However, the patta given to the petitioner, in the year 2007, shows as if the land given to the petitioner is on the eastern boundary of the land of the 5'^'^ respondent. This would mean that the passage, that is said to be existing on the western boundary of the 5 respondent, has now been allotted to the petitioner. The 5"^ respondent contends that such an allotment could not have been made as a public passage way is converted into private land. 5. th Sri K. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent have taken this Court through the material, placed by both sides, in support of 6. their contentions. The primary documents relied upon by the petitioner is said to be 7. a survey conducted by the mandal surveyor in the year 2017, wherein it was shown that the 5*'^ respondent is in occupation of 1 14 cents over and above the land allotted to his grand father. He would contend that the Mandal Surveyor, in the plan prepared on the basis of the said survey, has shown that the 5^*' respondent is in possession of 0.01 cents of the public passage way and 0.14 cent of the petitioner’s land. Sri J. Ugranarasimha, the learned counsel for the 6^^ respondnt disputes the plan itself. He submits that the said survey was done behind the 8. 4 RRR,J W.P.No.39144 of 2017 back of the 5^^ respondent and the said survey would not be binding on the 5*'' respondent. He would further submit that the claim of the petitioner that he was allotted 0.03 cents of land on the western side of the land of the respondent would mean that there is no passage way in between the 5‘^ respondent’s land and the petitioner’s land. However, the surveyor, in the plan prepared, in 2017, states that there is a passage way between the two parties. 9. In view of the aforesaid disputes, the simplest way to resolve the said dispute would be to conduct a survey of the land in the presence of the petitioner and the 5*^ respondent or their duly appointed representatives. The said survey would show the extent of land in the possession of the petitioner as well as the 5^^ respondent. The said survey would also show the boundaries that are available to each of the parties here. 10. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions: 1) The Gram Panchayat shall conduct a survey with the assistance of the Mandai Surveyor. 2) The survey shall be conducted to ascertain the boundaries of the land in the possession of the petitioner as well as the 5*^ respondent. 3) The boundary of the land that is in the possession of the 5^^ respondent has been set out in the patta given in the year 1934. A perusal of the patta shows that the demarcations were 60 links x 50 T 5 RRR,J W.P.No.39144of2017 links. The surveyor shall ensure that such boundaries shall be resolved and the plan shall be drawn up accordingly. 4) If it is found, in the course of the suii/ey, that either the petitioner or the 5*'^ respondent is in possession of land in excess of the allotment, the same shall be recovered and handed over to the Gram Panchayat, 5) From the record and the pleadings, it is clear that there is a passage way between the land of the petitioner and the 5"" respondent. The said passage way shall be restored, after the completion of the survey. 6) Needless to say, the said survey shall be conducted in the presence Kth of the petitioner and the o respondent or their duly appointed representatives and shall be conducted after due notice is given to both the parties. 7) The survey shall not depend upon any of the earlier surveys, for any purpose. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Vangalapudi, Amaravathi, Tullur Mandat, Guntur District. 2. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3. The Divisional Panchayati Raj Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. The Pothavaram Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Secretary, the Pothavaram 4. 5. One CC to Sri. K K Durga Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. J Ugranarasimha Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Y Koteswara Rao SC for ZPP, MPP and GP [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP For Panchayat Raj & Rurai Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies GSC M HIGH COURT DATED: 10/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.39144 of 2017 Of O g 3 C APR 2C?5 m ^ . Current iteollon DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS