APHC010580032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. S SANKARAIAH, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.8-646, ALMOSPET, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTR 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, KADAPA DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29800/2025 S SANKARAIAH, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O. 646, ALMOSPET, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTR THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI S SANKARAIAH, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O. 646, ALMOSPET, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), YSR KADAPA THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, YSR KADAPA THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, KADAPA, KADAPA, YSR ...RESPONDENT(S): RC,J W.P.No.29800 of 2025 2 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property admeasuring Ac.0.07 Cents situated at D.No.5/242-2, Adjacent to Government Junior College for Girls, Opposite to Head Post Office, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Area, YSR Kadapa District, without issuing any notice, by issuing Paper Publication dated 16.10.2025 and Tender Notification dated 18.10.2025, without following due process of law, despite the judgment dated 24.04.2019 in A.S.No.88 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently set- aside the Paper Publication dated 16.10.2025 and Tender Notification dated 18.10.2025 and direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property admeasuring Ac.0.07 Cents situated at D.No.5/242-2, Adjacent to Government Junior College for Girls, Opposite to Head Post Office, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Area, YSR Kadapa District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Paper Publication dated 16.10.2025 and Tender Notification dated 18.10.2025 by directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property admeasuring Ac.0.07 Cents situated at D.No.5/242-2, Adjacent to Government Junior College for Girls, Opposite to Head Post Office, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Area, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.No.29800 of 2025 3 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent authorities in trying to dispossess him from the subject premises, without notice, without following due process of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and moreover in contravention of the judgment passed in A.S.No.88 of 2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Heard Sri V.Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat. 3. Sri V.Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that the petitioner has been running business in the rented premises belongs to Zilla Praja Parishad and when the authorities tried to dispossess him, he filed suit vide O.S.No.350 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, YSR District and against the dismissal order passed therein, he preferred an Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.88 of 2017 and the said Appeal Suit was allowed thereby directing the respondent authorities not to interfere except under due process of law. He would further contend that despite the decree, the authorities issued a paper publication proposing to lease out schedule premises and if auction of RC,J W.P.No.29800 of 2025 4 lease hold rights as notified in the said paper publication takes place, the rights of the petitioner would get affected and therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, while placing the written instructions across bench would contend that paper publication was issued inviting the interested parties to renting out the building after construction and the demised building is proposed to be constructed in the vacant space situated abutting the room wherein the petitioner is conducting business and therefore the authorities are not going to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the room rented out to him without following any due process of law. He would further contend that the paper publication does not include the shop room of the petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter of the rent and he defaulted in payment of rent for a period of 4 ½ years and only after issuance of publication he had chosen to pay the rent. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Issuance of paper publication inviting the interested parties to renting out the building after construction led the petitioner to file this writ RC,J W.P.No.29800 of 2025 5 petition. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the shop room wherein he was conducting business was part of that paper publication. The learned Standing Counsel by placing on record the written instructions in clear and categorical terms submitted that the shop room wherein the petitioner is conducting business was not at all part of the paper publication and the said publication was issued excluding the shop room of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that if at all the authorities want to take steps against the shop room of the petitioner, that would only be done in accordance with law and by following the due procedure. 8. In view of the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject shop room wherein he is conducting business, except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated 30.10.2025. RR