APHC010360632019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17191/2019 Between: 1. CHILAKA SOLMON RAJU,, S/O. MOJES, DIRECTOR, SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DIRECTOR, SAMAVESAM OF TELUGU BAPTIST CHURCHES, C.A.M. COMPOUND, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. CH. JOB PAUL,, S/O. POUL, CORRESPONDENT, ABM PRIMARY SCHOOL, BESTAVARAPET, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM 2 DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 4. BESTHAVARIPET GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY-CUM-PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BESTHAVARIPET VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BESTAVARIPET POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. DUDEKULA ADAM, S/O NALLA KASANNA 7. MANDALA BUJJAIAH, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH 8. MICHANAGANDLA SATYANARAYANA, S/OVENKAIAH 9. BANAGANIPALLI BABU SAHEB, S/O JANGIL SAHEB 10. BODICHARLA JOHN SYMAN ARNOLD, S/O SYMAN 11. BUDDULA PREMANANDAM, S/O DEVID 12. THATHAPUDI IJAIAH, S/OJOHN 13. CHALLAGALI JASINTHA KUMARI, S/OPOLAIAH 14. DIGADARI SRINIVASULU, S/OSUBBARAYUDU 15. AVULA RAVI CHANDRA MAHES WARA REDDY, S/OPEERA REDDY 16. DIBBAGALLA DEVASAHAYAM, S/O JONATHAN 17. OORUMARPU SWARNALATHA, W/OJOSEPH 18. MADAND LA RAMANA REDDY, S/OVEERA REDDY 19. VAGICHARLA SUBBARATHNAM, S/O YELLAIAH 20. DAPPILI RAMI REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY 21. KARNATI SUBBA REDDY, S/O MAHANANDI REDDY 22. GOREDDY MOHAN REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY 3 23. VEGINATI OSURA REDDY, S/O GURUVA REDDY VENKATA SUBBA 24. PUNURI BHUPAL REDDY, S/O REDDY 25. SURAM RAMANA REDDY, S/ORAMA SUBBA REDDY 26. NADELLA SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA 27. SURE S RINIVASA KUMAR, S/O VENKATAPATHI 28. SYED ALLABAKS, S/OHAMJA 29. TIGIREDDY BHUPAL REDDY, S/OPEDDA GALI REDDY 30. KASHET TI BHIKSHAM, S/O BALASUBBAIAH 31. SURA BALA RANGA REDDY, S/ORANGA REDDY 32. CHILAKALA KESAVA REDDY, S/O VEERA REDDY 33. NADELLA SUBRAHMANYAM, S/OSATYANARAYANA 34. NICHHENAGATLA SATYAN ARYANA, S/O NOT KNOWN 35. BANAGINIPALLI BABU SAHEB, S/O HAMJA 36. NANDANAVANAM HUSSAIN, S/O KHASIM 37. OORUNTARPU JOSEPH, S/O PRAKASAM 38. VALLELA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU 39. BANDI VEERANJANEYULU REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY 40. ELPULA VENKATAIAH, S/O PEDA SUBBAIAH 41. T PANDU, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH 42. BOODALA THIMOTHI, S/O VANDANAM 43. DARIVEMULA MISSAMMA, W/O IJAIAH 44. KULUKURI SUJJI, S/0 SUKUMAR 4 45. J SAMUEL, S/O NOT KNOWN ..ESPONDENTS 6 TO 45 ARE MAJORS AND RESIDENTS OF BESTHAVARIPET VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT OWN ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 5 on the petitioners representation dt. 16.08.2019, submitted for protection of Properties admeasuring Ac. 100.00 Cents, covered by Survey Nos. 41 to 50 of Besthavaripet Village and 96/1 of Pusalapadu Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, belongs to the ABM Compound, a Christian Missionary from making illegal constructions by 6 to 45, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on respondents 1 to 5 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchyat Raj Act, 1994 and the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920 and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to prevent the illegal constructions being undertaken by the respondents 6 to 45 by removing the illegal constructions therein the land and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 1 to 5 to consider and decide the representation dt. 16.08.2019, submitted by the petitioners for prevention of illegal construction being undertaken by the respondents 6 to 45 and for removal of the already constructed portions therein the said landed Properties admeasuring Ac. 100.00 Cents covered by Survey Nos. 41 to 50 of Besthavaripet Village and 96/1 of Pusalapadu Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass 5 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MADHU SUDHAN P Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents on the petitioners’ representation dated 16.08.2019, seeking protection of the properties admeasuring Ac.100.00 cents in Sy.Nos.41 to 50 of Besthavaripet Village and 96/1 of Pusalapadu Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, wherein certain illegal constructions are being made by respondent Nos.6 to 45, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P. Madhu Sudhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel MPP, ZPP & Gram Panchayat and Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 45 and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 6 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the subject properties belong to a Christian Missionary and have been illegally encroached by respondent Nos.6 to 45, who have raised unauthorized constructions. Despite bringing it to the notice of the authorities concerned through a representation dated 16.08.2019, no action has been initiated so far. He further submitted that if the same is allowed to continue, it not only affects rights of the petitioners but also cause huge loss to the petitioners. It would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the authorities concerned to act upon the petitioner’s representation, accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 45, contended that the pleadings in the writ petition are so vague. He submitted that the subject properties belong to a Christian Missionary and several sale deeds have been executed to various individuals and the unofficial respondents are purchasers and they are in lawful possession. He further contended that the subject properties are not Government properties but private properties, hence, the 7 official respondents cannot remove any encroachments even if unofficial respondents are treated to be encroachers. The petitioners are not clear as to what relief they sought and have filed the present writ petition only to harass the unofficial respondents. In these circumstances, no direction can be given to the official respondents as sought by the petitioners, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel, contended that the writ petition is of the year 2019 and it is not known whether the representation so made by the petitioners is still available in the office records or not and if at all the petitioners still feel that there are any illegal unauthorized constructions, they can make a fresh representation to the concerned Gram Panchayat, which would then act upon the same in accordance with law. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the parties. 7. The case of the petitioners herein is that in spite of submitting a representation to the authorities concerned to protect the properties belonging to a certain Missionaries wherein 8 unauthorized constructions are being constructed by encroaching the same, the authorities have not acted upon the same so far. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, the officials cannot remove the encroachments even if there are any encroachments in the subject property as the same belong to a Missionary. However, if at all there are any unauthorized constructions made without any plan or permission, the Gram Panchyat officials can definitely take steps by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 28.02.2002. There is some force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the writ petition is of the year 2019 and it is not known whether the representation so made by the petitioner is still available in the office records or not. In those circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: (i) If at all the petitioners still have any grievance against any unauthorized constructions if made in the subject property without plan, they can make appropriate application afresh to the Gram Panchayat concerned. 9 (ii) On such representation being made, if the Gram Panchayat comes to a conclusion that there are illegal constructions made, they shall take steps in accordance with law by giving proper notice to the concerned parties including unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 45 and pass appropriate orders informing the same to the petitioners as well as unofficial respondents. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be or order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 28.10.2025 ANS 10 244 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17191/2019 Date: 28.10.2025 ANS