APHC010565202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. MALLE VENKATA RAO,, S/O. GURAVAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 2. MALLE ASHOK,, S/O. GURAVAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPU AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT BAPATLA. 4. KOPPERAPADU GRAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5. PENTYALA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. VISSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29267/2025 MALLE VENKATA RAO,, S/O. GURAVAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. MALLE ASHOK,, S/O. GURAVAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPU AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT KOPPERAPADU GRAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY-CUM-PANCHAYAT SECRETARY EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATLA PENTYALA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. VISSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI MALLE VENKATA RAO,, S/O. GURAVAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. MALLE ASHOK,, S/O. GURAVAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, COLLECTORATE THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT KOPPERAPADU GRAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATLA PENTYALA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. VISSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 6. NADENDIA NARASIMHARAO RAO, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 7. PUNATI RAMANJANEYULU, S/O. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 8. PUNATI NAGABHUSHANAM, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 9. PUNATI VEERANJANEYULU, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 10. YENKIPATI SRINIVASARAO, S/O. NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 11. KUNCHALA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. EAST KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly 3rd and 4th Respondents, in attempting to form a Cement Concrete Road over the Petitioners private site property admeasuring Ac.0.06y2 cents in Sy. No.245 of East Kopperapadu Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District, acting at the instance of 5th to 11th Respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction. violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over their said house sites and properties nor form any Cement Road thereon 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 direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents not to form the alleged Cement Concrete Road over the Petitioners’ exclusive private land in an extent of Ac.0.06y2 cents in Sy. No.245 of East Kopperapadu Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 & 4 in attempting to form a cement concrete road over the petitioners private site admeasuring Ac.0.06 ½ cents in Sy.No.245 of East Kopperapadu Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatla District, acting at instance of respondent Nos.5 to 11, as illegal, arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Petluri Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mettagunta Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that at the instance of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 11, official respondent Nos.3 & 4 are trying to form a cement road in the subject land highhandedly without following law and if the same is allowed, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and hardship, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on written instructions dated 28.10.2025 contended that a suit in O.S.No.281 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner against unofficial respondents before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, for permanent injunction and the same pending adjudication. He further submitted that the respondents are not interfering with the subject land and there is no resolution passed for laying road in Sy.No.245 of East Kopperapadu Village and the writ petition has been filed only on apprehension, as such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. It is not in dispute that a suit in O.S.No.281 of 2025 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, has been filed for permanent injunction. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule property and the schedule mentioned in the writ petition are one and the same. The submission so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no injunction granted in the said suit. Further, the cause of action in the suit and in the writ petition are different. A perusal of the plaint would clearly indicate that the defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff No.2 to sell his site covered under mark A,B,C,D portion by representing that he would arrange road shown in the plaint plan. It can be culled out that there is some issue with regard to the road. However, the fact of filing suit was suppressed in the present writ petition. It is well settled principle of law that no litigant can play 'hide and seek' with the courts or adopt 'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. However, this Court in inclined to take a lenient view and dismiss the writ petition. If at all the petitioners have any grievance they can pursue their remedies before Civil Court but cannot ventilate parallel proceedings before this Court under Article 226 jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 29th October, 2025 RKS