Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42350 (AP)

P AMMULU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/9848/2023 · 2025-12-02

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010192252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9848/2023 Between: 1. P AMMULU, W/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O BOMMAIAHPALLE VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAMMANDAL, CHITTOOR, DISTRICT. 2. P. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O P. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O BOMMAIAHPALLE VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAMMANDAL, CHITTOOR, DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATH PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VEDUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL PRAJAPARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VEDUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE GRAM PANCHAAYAT, BOMMAIAHAPALLE GRAM PANCHAYAT, BOMMAIAHPALLE VILLAGE, VEDUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION (RWS AND S), CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION (RWS SR S), CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 8 in trying to construct the water tank on the land of the petitioners in respect of the agriculture land of the 1st petitioner in Sy.No.75/4 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents, Sy.No.75/5 to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents, and 2nd petitioner is having the agriculture land in Sy.No.75/10 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, Sy.No.75/11 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents which is situated at Bommaiahpalli Village, VedurukuppamMandal, Chittoor District, trying to dispossess the petitioners from the above land, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from violation of the land under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in 3 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 8 not to construct the water tank on the petitioners' land in Sy.No.75/4 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents, Sy.No.75/5 to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents, and the land in Sy.No.75/10 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, Sy.No.75/11 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents which is situated at Bommaiahpalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, not to dispossess the petitioners from the above land, to issue notice to the petitioner and to follow the due process of law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 8 not to construct the water tank on the petitioners' land in Sy.No.75/ 4 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents, Sy.No.75/ 5 to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents, and the land in Sy.No.75/10 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, Sy.No.75/11 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents which is situated at Bommaiahpalli Village, VedurukuppamMandal, Chittoor District, not to dispossess the petitioners from the above land, to issue notice to the petitioner and to follow the due process of lawpending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY 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 4 The Court made the following ORDER: Challenging the action of respondent Nos.2 to 8 in attempting to construct a water tank on the lands to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents & Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.75/4 & 75/5 belong to the 1st petitioner and lands to an extent Ac.0.50 cents & Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.75/10 & 75/11 belonging to the 2nd petitioner, situated at Bommaiahpalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, without following the procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Pasala Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that when the respondent authorities, without issuing any prior notice and without following the due procedure contemplated under law, tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession in order to construct a water tank on the petitioners’ land, the present writ petition has been filed. This 5 Court, by order dated 20.04.2023, granted status-quo to be maintained existing as on that day in respect of the subject property. He further submitted that if at all the respondent authorities intend to acquire the subject lands for any public purpose, they must acquire the same by strictly following the procedure established under law and they cannot straight away interfere with the petitioners’ possession. If such action is allowed to continue, it would not only affect the rights of the petitioners but also adversely impact their livelihood. As such, prayed to pass appropriate order protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on written instructions dated 07.07.2023 of the Panchayat Secretary, submitted that the Gram Panchayat has not passed any resolution for construction of the water tank, as alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition. He further submitted that if the subject lands are required for any public purpose, the same would be acquired in accordance with law. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The said written instructions are placed on the record. 6 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities, in order to construct a water tank, are interfering with the petitioners’ possession without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under law. This Court, accordingly, by interim order dated 20.04.2023, directed the parties to maintain status-quo as on that date in respect of the subject property. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the Gram Panchayat has not passed any resolution for construction of the water tank and that they are not interfering with the petitioners’ lands. On perusal of the written instructions dated 07.07.2023, would indicate that only Sy.Nos.75/10 & 75/11 are mentioned therein and other survey numbers, i.e.,75/4 & 75/5, are not mentioned, though the concerned Secretary has noted about the said survey numbers in the written instructions. However, it is evident from the written instructions that the Gram Panchayat has not passed any resolution for construction of any water tank on the petitioners’ land. 7 7. Taking the written instructions dated 07.07.2023 and the interim order dated 20.04.2023 into consideration, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the lands to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents and Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.75/4 and 75/5 belonging to the 1st petitioner, and the lands to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents and Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.75/10 and 75/11 belonging to the 2nd petitioner, except in accordance with law.” 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 03.12.2025 ANS 8 376 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9848/2023 Date: 03.12.2025 ANS