APHC010263922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13642/2023 Between: Parvathamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are highhandedly interfering with the construction of her house bearing D.No:3-66 covered in Sy.No.323-1 situated in Chennekotha Palli Village and Mandal, Satya Sai District by issuing notices dated 15.05.2023 & 22.05.2023. 2. Heard Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Ms Sri Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner has purchased the subject property under registered sale deed on 10.07.1964 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by paying tax to the respondent authorities. He further submitted that, as the said building became old, the petitioner has demolished it and started constructing new building. While so, the respondent authorities are interfering with the said construction of the building and also issued notices dated 15.05.2023 & 22.05.2023 and obstructed the construction of the petitioner. He further submitted that, if such high-handed action of the respondents is materialised, much and irreperable loss would be caused to the petitioner apart from affecting her rights guarranteed under constitution. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. Ms Sri Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that, the petitioner is constructing the building by occupying the road margin which is used for ingress and egress to reach their property. As such no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat on instructions submitted that the petitioner has dug a large pit for construction of house and left it vacant without making any constructions causing obstacle to public and upon the notice of Sub-inspector of Police, Chennekothapalli dated 04.05.2023, the Gram Panchayat has issued notices to the petitioner dated 15.05.2023 & 22.05.2023 and the Gram Panchayat is not against the construction made by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has started a construction in the subject property by demolishing the old house. But the Gram Panchayat has submitted that the petitioner has dug a large pit for construction of house and left it vacant without making any constructions causing obstacle to public whereas the unofficial respondents have submitted that the petitioner is constructing the building by occupying the road margin which is used for ingress and egress to reach their property. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondent authorities are directed to take steps against the constructions, if any made by the petitioner contrary to law, in accordance with law.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS