APHC010007592023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 417/2023 Between: Dharmana Mahesh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. Y.Koteswara Rao (Standing Counsel for MPP ZPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) 4. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that, pending suit vide O.S.No.28/2021, the respondents are trying to lay road in the petitioner’s subject land admeasuring Ac.1.82 cents in Sy.No.204/1 & 204/2 situated in Mabagam Village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District without following due process of law. 2. Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for 5th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.13 cents in Sy.No.204/1 & 2 situated in Mabagam Village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District. He further submitted that, when BSNL and Gram Panchayat have encroached an extent of Ac.0.22 cents and 5th respondent had encroached an extent Ac.0.15 cents out of total subject property (Ac.2.13 cents), the petitioner had filed O.S.No.28/2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Pending adjudication of the said suit, the Gram Panchayat is trying to interefere with the possession and enjoyment of petitioner’s subject property and to lay road without issuing notice and without following due process of law. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for 5th respondent contended that, having filed suit vide O.S.No.28/2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the government officials including 5th respondent, the petitioner cannot file the present writ petition seeking the same relief as parallel proceedings cannot be entertained by this Court. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, out of Ac.2.13 cents, Ac.0.32 cents have been occupied by the defendants in the said suit and now, in the remaining extents of subject property, the Gram Panchayat is trying to lay road, as such the suit schedule property and writ petition property are different and does not come under parallel proceedings. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submitted that the Gram Panchayat is not interfering with the subject property nor proposing to lay a road as alleged by the petitioner. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, out of total extents admeasuring Ac.2.13 cents of the subject property, the Gram Panchayat is trying to lay road in Ac.1.82 cents without following due process of law. The further contention is that, when the remaining extents of subject property (Ac.2.13 cents) were occupied by BSNL, Gram Panchayat including 5th respondent herein, the petitioner filed O.S.No.28/2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narasannapeta for declaration of title and recovery of possession which is pending consideration. Whereas the contention of the 5th respondent is that, this Court should not interfere in the matter where suit or any other proceeding is pending before the lower court or forum seeking same relief. But as per the submission of the petitioner, suit schedule property and writ petition property are different and does not come under parallel proceedings. However, this court is not inclined to go into said aspect whether the suit schedule property and writ petition property are same or not. 9. Moreover, in view of the submission made by the learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat that they are not interfering with the subject property and nor proposing to lay a road as alleged by the petitioner, there remains nothing for adjudication and the writ petition is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS