APHC010171172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8908/2025 Between: Sirigineedi Pandu Ranga Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 4. B VAMSI KRISHNA The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of bringing to notice of the authorities concerned regarding the illegal constructions made by the 6th respondent in the common site in R.S.No.698-3 of Satyanarayanapuram, Adavaikolanu village, Nidamarru Mandal, Eluru District, no action has been initiated. Hence the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for 6th respondent, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the unofficial respondent(6th respondent) has started construction of building by encroaching a common site without obtaining any approved plan from the Gram Panchayat and without leaving ay setbacks thereby obstructed the ingress and egress to reach the petitioner’s house. He further submitted that, inspite of making representations in that regard dated 17.02.2025, 25.02.2025 &17.03.2025, the authorities concerned have not acted upon. He further submitted that, the 5th respondent had laid electricity pole in the middle of the common passage thereby further obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioner. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for 6th respondent contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the construction made by the petitioner and the 6th respondent has never encroached the common site as alleged by the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat while passing the counter across the bench submitted that, upon the representations made by the petitioner, the gram panchayat has already issued show cause notices to the 6th respondent and has set law into motion. He further submitted that after conducting proper enquiry, the Gram Panchayat will issue final order and will take appropriate action against the 6th respondent by following due process of law. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 6th respondent has constructed a building in the common site without obtaining any approved plan from the Gram Panchayat and without leaving any setbacks, which is obstructing the ingress and egress to reach the petitioner’s house and further the 5th respondent had laid electricity pole in the middle of the common passage in R.S.No.698-3 causing further obstruction. A perusal of the counter filed by the Gram Panchayat would show that the gram panchayat has already issued show cause notices to the 6th respondent and would take appropriate action against the 6th respondent by issuing final order in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, without going into merits, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: (i) the 6th respondent shall submit a detailed explanation to the show cause notices issued by the Gram Panchayat explaining whether the construction is being made in the common site in R.S.No.698-3 of Satyanarayanapuram, Adavaikolanu village, Nidamarru Mandal, Eluru District or not and put forth his claim by enclosing all the documents in support of his claim. (ii) On such representation/explanation, if it is found that the 6th respondent has encroached the common site, the respondent authorities concerned are directed to take steps in accordance with law by giving proper notices after providing an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. (iii) Such an exercise should be completed within three(03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, the interim order granted earlier shall continue to be in force. (iv) Further, if it was found that an electricity pole was erected in the common passage in R.S.No.698-3 of Satyanarayanapuram, Adavaikolanu village, Nidamarru Mandal, Eluru District, the respondent authorities shall remove the same, in accordance with law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS