::1:: APHC010354662019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16868/2019 Between: 1. B. ADINARAYANA REDDY,, S/O. B. NALLAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHENNAMPALLI VILLAGE, B.K. SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. B. SUBADRAMMA,, W/O. B. PEDDI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHENNAMPALLI VILLAGE, B.K. SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BUKKARAYA SAMUDRAM, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE CHENNAPALLY GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, B.K. SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, BUKKARAYA SAMUDRAM, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 This Court made the following ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the notice dated 23.10.2019 for removal of compound wall in Sy.No.186-1 an extent of 0.02 cents Chennampalli Vi I idge, Bukkaraya Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and consequently st t aside the notice dated 23.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 (i) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and pass.....” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the 5th respondent/Tahsildar granted house site pattas to the petitioners in Sy.No.186-1, each to an extent of 600 square yards, on 29.11.2018. However, at the time of issuance, the survey number was erroneously recorded as Sy.No.189 instead of Sy.No.186-1. Upon being informed, the 5th respondent acknowledged the error but, without issuing fresh pattas, instructed the petitioners to 3 proceed with construction in Sy.No.186-1. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd petitioner constructed a house with a compound wall, and the 1st petitioner raised construction up to the basement level. The wife of the 1st petitioner was included in the AHUDA beneficiaries’ list, and the 2nd petitioner’s name also appeared in the said list. 4. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the 4th respondent, without following the due process of law, issued a notice dated 23.10.2019, allegeing that instead of constructing a compound wall at Sy.No.189, as per the possession certificates issued by the revenue authorities in favour of the petitioners, but the petitioners got constructed compound wall and common wash rooms in Sy.No.186-1, to an extent of Ac.0.7 cents. He further submits that, pending the writ petition, the respondents proceeded further, demolished the compound wall, and constructed a Village Health Clinic at the subject site. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioners’ claim is on pattas/possession certificates relating to land in Sy.No.189, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.38 cents. It is further submitted that the compound wall which was removed and the Village Health Clinic was already constructed 4 situated in Sy.No.186. Consequently, the petitioners cannot have any claim or assert any right over the said land as against the respondents. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat, and on perusal of the material available on record as well as the instructions of the respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat, it is observed that the petitioners’ claim is that they were assigned land by way of patta dated 29.11.2018 in respect of 600 square yards is not true and correct. For the reason that the petitioners were not assigned the subject land under any patta, but they were only issued possession certificates in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.38 cents in Sy.No.189. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is contrary to the possession certificates issued by the 5th respondent. Further, even assuming that the subject land was assigned to the petitioners, i.e., the rights against the land is in Sy.No.189, the proposed removal of encroachments and the construction of the Village Health Clinic pertains to Sy.No.186. Hence, the claim of the petitioners, even though the patta/possession certificate refers to Sy.No.189, cannot 5 be extended to Sy.No.186. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in respect of Sy.No.186 cannot be said to be contrary to the terms of the patta/possession certificates issued in favour of the petitioners, hence, the claim of the petitioners is neither valid nor tenable. It is for the petitioners to seek clarification by making a representation, in respect of any mistake occurred in mentioning the survey number for correction or for modifying the same, and such rectification should have been sought within a reasonable time. Admittedly, the petitioners did not take any steps for rectification of the alleged error in respect of Sy.No.189 instead of Sy.No.186. Moreover, as per the instructions submitted by the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat, the 4th respondent has already removed the compound wall and also constructed a Village Health Clinic in Sy.No.186. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies, if so advised, against the respondents with regard to the construction at the subject land of the petitioner. 6 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 30.08.2025 klk 7 390 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.16868 of 2019 30.08.2025 klk