APHC010701732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36202/2025 Between: 1. NIMMAGADDA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O.ANKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O.NIMMAGADDAVARI PALEM VILLAGE PRATHIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 019. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ (RD AND PR), AP SECRETARIAT, BLOCK NO.5, GROUND FLOOR, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522 238. 2. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 004. 3. MANDAL PARISHATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522 019. 4. GORIJAVOLU PADMAJA, SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT NIMMAGADDAVARI PALEM, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522 019. ...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 any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the Respondent 2 No.4 in carrying out unauthorized construction on the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.3.17 cents in Sy. No. 341, (Prathipadu Revenue) of Nimagaddavari Palem Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary and protect the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land 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 Pleased to grant STAY the construction being planed by Respondent No.4 at the western side of my land admeasuring Ac.3.17 cents in Survey No.341, (Prathipadu Revenue) of Nimmagaddavari Palem Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District until disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Dr.MALLADI KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Dr.Malladi Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Notice with respect to respondent No.4 dispensed with, as no right or interest of the 4th respondent is affected. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is interfering and carrying out construction on the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.341 of Nimagaddavari Palem Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District. Complaining that the said action is illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.341 of Nimaggadavari Palem Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner raised soil on the western side to the road level and made a haystack. The 4th respondent is attempting to make a construction by encroaching upon the petitioner’s land. Complaining about the said action, the petitioner approached the Court. 4. As seen from the arguments advanced and averments in the affidavit, the petitioner complained of the action of the 4th respondent in encroaching upon the petitioner’s land and making constructions. The 4th respondent in the writ petition will not come under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition against the 4th respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the considered opinion of this court, would not lie. To redress the grievance, the petitioner had to approach the competent Civil Court. Whether the 4th respondent is encroaching upon the land of the petitioner is a disputed question of fact. The petitioner needs to lead evidence in that respect. 4 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty & vs Rajendra Shankar Patil reported1 has held as under: It is well settled that a writ petition is a remedy in public law which may be filed by any person but the main respondent should be either Government, Governmental agencies or a State or instrumentalities of a State within the meaning of Article 12. Private individuals cannot be equated with State or instrumentalities of the State. All the respondents in a writ petition cannot be private parties. But private parties acting in collusion with State can be respondents in a writ petition. Under the phraseology of Article 226, High Court can issue writ to any person, but the person against whom writ will be issued must have some statutory or public duty to perform. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam2, has observed as under: "26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts.” 7. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum seeking redressal of the grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated: 26.12.2025 JLV 1 (2010) 8 SCC 329 2 (2021) 20 SCC 454 5 88 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36202/2025 Dated: 26.12.2025 JLV