\ APHC010024032020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1462 OF 2020 Between: SRK Foundation, Rep.by its Secretary, Sri B.S.Sri Krishna S/o B.S.Appa Rao,aged 45 years. District, A.P Enikepadu, Vijayawada, Krishna ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. The Gram Panchayat, Rep by its special officer Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Secretary Gram Panchayat, Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in attempting to demolish the structures of the petitioner property situated in an extent of Ac. 0.21 3/4 cents situated in Sy.No 152 inspite of appeal pending before the 3rd respondent gram panchayat and inspite of regularization proceedings pending pursuant to 1st respondent letter dt 28-05-2016 as arbitrary, / illegal, unjust, malafide and contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and apart from violation of the principle of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere or demolish the petitioner's property pending disposal off the appeal before 3rd respondent and regularization proceedings before the 1st the respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 to 4th respondent not to interfere or demolish the petitioner's property pending disposal off the appeal before the 3rd respondent and regularization above writ proceedings before the 1 st respondents pending disposal of the petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO FORZPP, MPPANDGP The Court made the following order: SC 1 APHC010024032020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3329] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1462/2020 Between; REP.BY ITS SECRATERY, SRI 1.SRK FOUNDATION B.S.SRI KRISHNA S/0 B.S.APPA RAO,AGED 45 YEARS ENIKEPADU,VIJ AYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P )) ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 3.THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER ENIKEPADU VILLAGE,VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.THE SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT, ENIKEPADU VILLAGE,VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT ...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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in attempting to demolish the structures of the petitioner property situated in an extent of Ac 0.21 3/4 cents situated in Sy.No 152 inspite of appeal pending before the 3rd respondent gram panchayat and inspite of regularization proceedings pending consideration pursuant to 1st respondent letter dt 28-05-2016 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, malafide and contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and apart from violation of the principle of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere or demolish the petitioner's property pending disposal off the appeal before the 3rd respondent , proceedings before the 1st respondent and regularization Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AS C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2.N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.1462 of 2020 This Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner i.e., SRK Foundation is a society registered as per provisions of The Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it has been imparting education to achieve the object of the society by establishing Engineering and Pharmacy Colleges in the land admeasuring Ac.2.13V2 cents in R.S.No.153/2, Ac.1.08 cents in R.S.No.153/3, Ac.0.96 cents in R.S.No.153/4 totaling to an extent of Ac.4.17 72 cents situated at Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada, Krishna District. While so, to the surprise of the petitioner, the 4‘^ Respondent herein issued a notice dated 08.09.2016 stating that the petitioner is under occupation/encroachment of land to an extent of Ac.0.2 % cents in Sy.No.152 and sought demolition of the constructions thereon. Challenging the impugned notice the petitioner filed W.P.No.40124/2016 before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition on 2. 4 21.11.2016 by ordering that the impugned notice shall be treated as show-cause notice and petitioner was directed to submit explanation and after such explanation the 4*^ respondent is directed to consider the same and pass speaking orders and proceed further in accordance with law. In compliance of the orders of this Court the petitioner submitted explanation 01.12.2016. Considering the same, the 4*^ respondent herein passed an order dated 30.12.2016, wherein it is observed that the on extent of land held by the petitioner is only Ac.04.00 cents but in physically it is under occupation of more than Ac.4.00 cents i.e., Ac.0.21% by reiterating what was stated in its notice. In consequence, the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachments in respect of the said extent of land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assailing the same the petitioner preferred an appeal as per Section 128 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “Act, 1994”) on 23.01.2017. Even though the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal as provided Under Section 128 of the Act, 1994, the Appellate Authority i.e., Gram Panchayat neither considered the appeal nor passed any other orders. Hence the Writ Petition. 5 On the other hand, Respondent No.4 filed counter wherein 4. it is stated as under; “4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging that the gram panchayat has attempted to demolish the structures of the petitioner’s property situated in an extent of Ac.0.2iy4 cents situated in Sy.No.152 in spite of an appeal pending before the S"'' respondent gram panchayat and in spite of regularization proceedings pending. It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are false and unsubstantiated with material facts. 5, It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner herein is a society registered under the Society registration Act and has constructed a compound wall by encroaching an extent of Ac.0.21 % cents in R.S.No.152 which is classified as “Government Poramboke Gunta”. The petitioner has wilfully laid down a compound wall into the poramboke land thereby causing obstruction to the waterways. In view of the encroachment, the gram panchayat has received a complaint from one Kota Murali Krishna seeking clearance of the subject land from illegal occupation. In view of the complaint, the gram panchayat has issued a notice on 08.09.2016 thereby directing the petitioner to remove the encroachments. It is relevant to mention that a writ petition inW.P.No.40124/2016 was preferred wherein this Hon’ble Court directed the petitioner herein to treat it as a show cause notice.” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material placed on record. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and material placed on record, it is observed that the petitioner rightly availed the statutory alternative remedy as provided under Section 128 of the Act, 1994. For more understanding Section 128 of the Act, 1994 extracted hereunder; 5. 6. 128, Appeal from the order of executive authority- (1) An appeal shall lie to the gram panchayat from,- (a) any order of the executive authority granting, refusing, suspending or revoking a licence or permission; (b) any other order of the executive authority that may be made appealable by rules made under section 268. (2) A second appeal shall lie from the decision of the gram panchayat passed in an appeal under sub-section (1) to such authority be prescribed whose decision thereon shall be final. as may 7. On perusal of the Section 128 of the Act, 1994, any order passed Under Section 98 of the Act, 1994 is an appealable order before Appellate Authority i.e.. Gram Panchayat. It is settled law that once the scheme of the Act provides for resolution of disputes between the Executive Authority and party, the Appellate Authority should exercise its power and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period as specified thereunder. In the absence of any specified period, it is settled law by way of ratio laid down by this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court that any statutory appeal should be disposed of within a period of six months. Admittedly, the appeal is filed in the year 2017 and same ought to have disposed of within six months. The counter filed by the 4*'" respondent which was filed in the year 2023 though there is a specific plea of the petitioner that pending appeal the respondents are trying to interfere with the structures the , even of the petitioner, and also the counter did not answer the query of the petitioner rather even though this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents for getting instructions as to whether the appeal is disposed of or not, the same was not reported on the ground of no instructions were received. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 4**^ respondent - Gram Panchayat to dispose of the appeal within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if not disposed of so far. If the subject appeal is disposed of, the 4 respondent is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. 9. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRI DEN^ assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. Pradesh, 2. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. Special Officer, Gram Panchayat, Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada 3. The Rural Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Secretary Gram Panchayat, Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District. One CC to Sri. A S C Bose Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri. Y Koteswara Rao (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and Gram Panchayat) [OPUC] Two CD Copies GSC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 1462 OF 2020 ^ 2 0 SEP 2025 \ Trent Sectiottx^' o 05 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS