APHC010263232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13654/2025 Between: Adigarla Satyam Murthy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NANILU NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POOLLA SRAVANTH 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. SHAIK RAFI 5. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that, despite making a representation dated 03.05.2025 regarding the illegal constructions made by the respondent nos.4 to 6 in and extent of Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.81-1 situated at Mallu Bhupalapatnam Village, Nathavaramam Mandal, Visakhapatnam district, the respondent authorities have not initiated any action. Hence the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri P.Nanilu Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri ShaiK Rafi, learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents, Sri Poolla Sravanth, learned counsel for 6th respondent and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner had purchased the subject property under agreement of sale deed dated 29.01.2016. He further submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit vide O.S.No.202 of 2016 for specific performance of sale of agreement dated 29.01.2016 against the 4 & 5 respondents herein which was decreed in his favour on 02.05.2017. Subsequently E.P.No.75 of 2018 was filed and upon receiving summons, the unofficial respondents herein have started construction illegally in the subject property which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that, inspite of making representation dated 03.05.2025 in that regard, the authorities concerned have not acted upon. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that, the 6th respondent is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and the alleged agreement of sale dated 29.01.2016 was prepared by the henchmen of the petitioner, upon which they have fabricated the signatures of the unofficial respondents. As such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the unofficial respondents are making constructions illegally in the subject property and despite making a representation dated 03.05.2025 in that regard, the authorities have not taken any action. Whereas the unofficial respondents are disputing with the possession of the petitioner in the subject property stating that the agreement of sale dated 29.01.2016 was forged and fabricated one. This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect of title and possession of the subject property. 7. As the relief sought by the petitioner is innocuous, this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, without inviting counter, with the following direction: If any illegal constructions are found to be made in the subject property contrary to law, the respondent authorities are directed to take steps in accordance with law within three(03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS