APHC010276022023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14146/2023 Between: Cherukuri Nageswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Non-consideration of his representation dated 18.04.2023 submitted for removal of encroachments made by the 6th respondent in an extent of Ac.0.04 cents on the Panchayat Public road margin, abutting to his house site and site property admeasuring Ac.0.08 cents in Sitarampet of Epurupalem village, Bapatla District, without obtaining any permission and thereby blocking access to his house, is the grievance of the petitioner. 2. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Sri D.Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 3. Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat on instructions of the Panchayat Secretary dated 22.12.2025 submitted that upon verification of records available with them, it was observed that 6th respondent owns the property abutting the road margin in Sy.No.91 of Epurupalem village. It was further submitted that in the event if any encroachments were found upon the road margin or Gram Panchayat road, the authorities will take necessary action for removal of such encroachments after conducting a proper survey and demarcation of boundaries strictly in accordance with law. 4. Sri D.Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that, the petitioner had filed a suit vide O.S.No.408/1999 for the very same relief which got dismissed and the same has attained finality. Having knocked the doors of the competent civil court, the petitioner once again filed the present writ petition only to harass the respondents and the same is nothing but abuse of process of law and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the said suit, the Gram Panchayat was not a party and as the petitioner was unsuccessful in the said suit, the respondents cannot find fault in approaching this Hon’ble court. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that, the Panchayat Secretary, Epurupalem was examined in the said suit as Pw.4 and he has stated that there are no encroachments. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parites. 8. The issue is with regard to the encroachments made in the road margin. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S.No.408/1999 wherein Panchayat Secretary, Epurupalem was examined as Pw.4. However, in the present case, the learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat has submitted that, in the event if any encroachments were found upon the road margin or Gram Panchayat road, the authorities will take necessary action for removal of such encroachments after conducting a proper survey and demarcation of boundaries strictly in accordance with law. 9. In the above view of facts and circumstances, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The Gram Panchayat concerned shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and take steps 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