APHC010239882023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12948/2023 Between: Chandaka Pentaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 4. G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU 5. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that despite making representation dated 25.04.2023 for conducting enquiry and for providing passage for ingress and egress to the petitioner’s land, the respondents authorities have not acted upon the same. 2. Heard Sri P.Balu Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, the petitioner had purchased the subject land admeasuring Ac.4.12 ½ cents in Sy.No.6 situated at B.B.Patnam Revenue Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari district, under registered sale deed dated 15.02.2001 and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment by cultivating the said land. He further submitted that, the unofficial respondents are obstructing and preventing the petitioner from entering into his land for cultivation, due to which the petitioner had sustained severe loss. He further submitted that, despite making several representations in that regard, the authorities have not taken any necessary action. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat on counter submitted that, the Gram Panchayat never interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and there is a dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents with regard to boundaries and title. Hence, the petitioner cannot raise any allegation against the respondent authorities. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. As could be culled out the facts of the case, it shows that there exists a dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents with regard to boundaries and title. In the said circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Standing counsel, the petitioner cannot raise allegation against the respondent authorities by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, writ petition is frivolous and devoid of merits and it has to be dismissed with costs. However, with a lineant view, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition without imposing any costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach competent civil court in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS