APHC010176532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THESECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9071/2025 Between: 1. ELISALA PRAKASHA RAO, S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O VELLATURU, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 229 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER DPO, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA BYPASS ROAD, VENKATESWARA NAGAR, MAHENDRA NAGAR, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR (KRISHNA) ANDHRA PRADESH -520012 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, NEAR PWD GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT- 521 229. 2 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VELLATURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 229. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SARPANCH, VELLATURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 229. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, G KONDURU POLICE STATION, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 229. 8. ELISALA JOJI, S/O BALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O VELLATURU, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR (KRISHNA) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 229. ...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 topleased declare the action of the respondents 2, 5,6 and 7 herein, in not taking any action in re- filling with the gravel and close the pit inoorder to save the compound wall and house and also the lives of our family members as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300- A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the Collector, NTR District and the Diostrict Panchayat officer, NTR to probe into the matter immediately and see that the illegal actions of the 8th respondent may be stopped in digging the pit and removing the gravel by way of mining on the southern side of the my house and landed property in RS.No.465/2, Vellaturu Village, G konduru Mandal NTR District and to re-fill with the gravel to save the house and also the lives of the petitioner and his family members, and to pass 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 pleased direct the 3rd 3 respondent to take the action immediatley in re-filling with the gravel in the pit dug by the 8th respodnent illegally to cause cause damage to the wall and the house on the southern side of my compound wall in RS.No.465/2, Vellaturu Village, G konduru Mandal NTR District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GIRI BABU MARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. DHEERA KANISHKA The Court made the following Order: Declaring the action of respondent Nos.2, 5, 6 & 7 in not taking any action to refill the gravel and close the pit dug unauthorisedly by respondent No.8 on the southern side of the petitioner’s house situated in RS.No.465/2 of Vellaturu Village, G Konduru Mandal and NTR District, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Giribabu Marthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel for respondent No.8, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M. Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the petitioner and his brother have purchased the subject property and constructed a house, and that respondent No.8 unauthorisedly dug a pit with a width of four feet and a depth of 6 feet, causing serious damage to the petitioner’s compound wall and residential building. When the petitioner questioned the same, respondent No.8 threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and further warned the petitioner by using a JCB, compelling the petitioner to lodge a complaint before respondent Nos.5 & 6. However, the respondent authorities, in collusion with respondent No.8, have not taken action, even after bringing to the notice of the District Panchayat Officer. In support of his contentions, he relied on the Tahsildar’s report stating that there is imminent danger to the petitioner’s property. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submitted that when there is a dispute between two individuals, namely, the petitioner and respondent No.8, the official respondents cannot be involved nor any request be made to them to settle such dispute and that the parities have to 5 approach the competent civil Court in that regard. As such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Similar argument has advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.8. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the life and liberty of the petitioner are very much involved and that there is an imminent danger to the petitioner and his family, as respondent No.8 dug a pit due to which the compound wall is likely to collapse. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in T. Bimala vs. C.M.C, Cuttack & Ors.1 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 8. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of respective counsel, there exist a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.8. If respondent No.8 has dug any pit damaging the petitioner’s compound and residential building, as stated in the affidavit, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the competent civil Court. The only allegation raised against the respondent authorities is that they have not taken any action against respondent No.8. 1 2015 (II) ILR-CUT-1 6 A perusal of the record would indicate that a report has been given to the concerned police against respondent No.8 and the same has not been considered so far. Further, it is very surprising to see that under which law the Tahsildar has given such report, and the same cannot be a basis for entertaining the writ petition. It is well settled principle of law that when there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner, either by approaching the concerned Superintendent of Police or file a private complaint before the competent criminal Court, when no action has been taken on the complaint, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of the India and file a writ petition. 9. The relevant portion of the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as follows: 10. “Next is the issue of “Maintainability of the writ petition” before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants though initially very strongly contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal laws already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil laws and thus the Civil Court’s jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score, excepting however recording that the laws Courts exist for the society and they have an obligation to met the social aspirations of citizens since law Courts must also respondent to the needs of the people. In this context, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court: the first in line is the decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (AIR 1993 SC 1960) wherein this Court relying upon the decision in Rudal Sah (Rudal Sah v. 7 State of Bihar), (AIR 1983 SC 1086) decried the illegality and impropriety in awarding compensation in a proceeding in which the Court’s power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution stands involved and thus observed that it was a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for custodial death of her son. It is undoubtedly true, however, that in the present context, there is no infringement of the State’s obligation, unless of course the State can also be termed to be joint tortfeasor, but since the case fo the parties stand restricted and without imparting any liability on the State, we do not deem it expedient to deal with the issue any further except noting the two decisions of this Court as above and without expression of any opinion in regard thereto.” 10. No doubt, the judgment relied by the petitioner is a well settled principle of law; however, the same is not applicable to the present case. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. Insofar as the criminal case is concerned, the petitioner can also avail the remedies available under law. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.12.2025 ANS 8 303 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9071/2025 Date: 02.12.2025 ANS