APHC010209742023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10847/2023 Between: Chundi Murali Krishna and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: Impugning the order of the 4th respondent dated 21.04.2023, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject property covered by Sy.No.404 situated in Inkollu Revenue Village and mandal, Prakasam District. She further submitted that the 4th respondent has issued the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 directing the petitioners to remove the structures that are constructed by occupying the land on the road poramboke in the village, without following due process of law. If the said impugned order is allowed to subsist, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. As such prayed to pass appropriate order protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submitted that by virtue of Section 128 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as against the impugned order, appeal lies before the Gram Panchayat, without availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court cannot adjudicate the same under Article 226 of the Constitution. As such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has issued the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 directing the petitioners to remove the structures from the Sy.No.404 without following due process of law. As rightly contended by learned standing counsel and as per the Section 128 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as against the impugned order, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Gram Panchayat. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has straight away filed the present writ petition. However, the impugned order is of the year 2023. 7. In Union Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon1, the Apex Court has held that it is true that rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass an order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision etc., and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 8. Mere availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, however, legal contingencies that are required to bypass the alternative remedy should be made out while invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In the present case, the petitioners have not made out any exigencies to bypass the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. 9. In view of the same, without going into merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that by virtue of 1 (2010) 8 SCC 110 Section 128 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 alternative remedy of filing an appeal before Gram Panchayat is available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS