APHC010514382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26536/2025 Between: 1. BHAVIRISETTY VENKATA RAO, DS/O SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O MALLAVOLU VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR DISTRICT), A. P-522413. 2. 2. KALLURI GOPI KRISHNA, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O KOTANEMALIPURI VILLAGE, RAJU PALEM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR DISTRICT), A.P. 3 3. GHATTAMANENI RAMANADHA BABU, .S/O SURYA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. SENIOR CITIZEN, R/O. FLAT NO.312, VASAVI RESIDENCY, J MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT 4. .SAJJA MALLIKARJUNA RAO, S/O RAMA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.312, VASAVI RESIDENCY, JANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICPT, A.P. 2. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26536/2025 BHAVIRISETTY VENKATA RAO, DS/O SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O MALLAVOLU VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR 522413. 2. KALLURI GOPI KRISHNA, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O KOTANEMALIPURI VILLAGE, RAJU PALEM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR DISTRICT), GHATTAMANENI RAMANADHA BABU, .S/O SURYA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. SENIOR CITIZEN, R/O. FLAT NO.312, VASAVI RESIDENCY, JANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT-522413. 4 .SAJJA MALLIKARJUNA RAO, S/O RAMA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.312, VASAVI RESIDENCY, JANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT-522413 ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICPT, A.P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BHAVIRISETTY VENKATA RAO, DS/O SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O MALLAVOLU VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR KALLURI GOPI KRISHNA, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O KOTANEMALIPURI VILLAGE, RAJU PALEM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR DISTRICT), GHATTAMANENI RAMANADHA BABU, .S/O SURYA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. SENIOR CITIZEN, R/O. FLAT NO.312, ANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA .SAJJA MALLIKARJUNA RAO, S/O RAMA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.312, VASAVI RESIDENCY, JANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, ..PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICPT, A.P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU, DISTRICT. 4. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GURAZALA, PALNADU, DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. E. 6. JANAPADU GRAMPANCHAYATH, REP BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, JANAPADU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 7. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...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 a Writ Of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents 6 with the help of respondent No.7 in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy.No.838/B-1 as illegal, arbitrary, and in clear violation of law, and consequently direct the Respondents 6 to 7 not to interfere with or dispossess the petitioners from the said land in Sy.No.838/B-1, and pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 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 to direct the Respondents 6 to 7 not to interfere with or dispossess the petitioners from the said land in Sy.No.838/B-1 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of respondent No.6 along with respondent No.7 in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy.No.838/B-1 as illegal, arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that respondent No.6 is interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject properties and trying to dispossess them in collusion with respondent No.7 and not taking any action on the encroachers and if the same is allowed to continue, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on written instructions of the Panchayat Secretary, Janapadu, dated 11.10.2025 submitted that the gram panchayat was not at all interfering and not issued eviction notice with regard to the subject land. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also submitted that the Station House Officer was also not interfering with the subject property and the writ petition has been filed on mere apprehension, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners requested to record the said submission and close the writ petition. 7. Taking the said submission into consideration, as the respondents are not interfering with the subject property of the petitioners, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counter and the writ petition is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 03rd November, 2025 RKS