APHC010696362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35920/2025 Between: 1. MAILAMBA,, W/O. K. KANNAN. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DEVADODDI VILLAGE, BAIREDLAPALLIMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 2. K. KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. LATE K. KUPPASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. DEVADODDI VILLAGE, BAIREDLAPALLIMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR.517001 3. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYATH OFFICER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517001 4. THE MANDALPANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, 2 BAIREDDIPALLEMANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517415 5. THE DEVEDODDI VILLAGE GRAM PANCHAYATH, REP BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, DEVADODDI VILLAGE, BAIREDDIPALLEMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517415 6. THE TAHASILDAR, BAIREDDIPALLE MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517415 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAIREDDIPALLEMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517415 8. AMMER BASHA, S/O. DIWAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. DEVADODDI VILLAGE THOTAKNUMA POST, BAIREDDIPALLEMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517415 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.4 to 9 in interfering with the Petitioners rights over the houses constructed in House Plot No's. 4 and 5 in an extant of 0.02 Cents each in Sy.No.322 of Devadoddi Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, under the guise of issuance of the Notice, dated 08-12-2025 issued by the respondent No.4 and threatening Petitioners that they would demolish the houses without considering the reply submitted by Petitioners as arbitrary. illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being voilative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.4 to 7 not to interfere with the Petitioners rights over House Plot No's. 4 to 7 in an extant of 0.02 Cents each in Sy.No.322 of 3 Devadoddi Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal Chittoor District, without following due process of law and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents No.4 to 7 not to dispossess the Petitioners from the House Plot No's. 4 and 5 in an extant of 0.02 Cents each in Sy.No.322 of Devadoddi Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, belong to the Petitioners without following due process of law pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: To declare the action of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 in interfering with the petitioners9 rights over the houses constructed in House Plot Nos.4 & 5 in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents each in Sy.No.322 of Devadoddi Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, without considering the explanation submitted in response to the notice dated 18.12.2025, the present petition is filed. 2. Heard Ms. S. Parineeta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram 4 Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that respondent No.4-Mandal Parishad Development Officer issued a notice dated 08.12.2025 calling upon the petitioners to appear before him on 15.12.2025 at 11:00 a.m., along with all relevant documents and objections, pursuant to the complaint given by one Ameer Basha, S/o Diwan Saheb, who is respondent No. 8 herein. In fact, when the respondent authorities tried to interfere with the petitioners9 possession, the petitioners filed W.P.No.25818 of 2023 and this Court, after duly taking into consideration the interim order passed, closed the said writ petition observing that if the unofficial respondents are aggrieved, they are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings. She further submitted that pursuant to the disposal of the said writ petition, the unofficial respondent i.e., respondent No.8 herein, filed W.P.No.10862 of 2024, wherein this Court has disposed of the writ petition under its order dated 25.11.2025 with the following directions: 5 “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to examine the representations made by the petitioner dated 16.02.2024, 05.03.2024 & 11.03.2024. Before passing any final orders, the concerned authority is directed to issue notice to the unofficial respondents. The unofficial respondents are at liberty to file all the relevant documents before the authority. On filing such relevant material, the official respondents are directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents herein.” 4. She further submitted that though this Court has specifically directed that notice shall be issued by the concerned authority, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer issued notice dated 08.12.2025 without any authority or jurisdiction. If such notice is allowed to subsist, it would affect the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the said notice is liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and accordingly, prayed to allow the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel contended that the said notice has not been questioned on ground of jurisdiction and without there being any pleading to that effect, the petitioners cannot argue and state that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) has no jurisdiction at all. He further submitted that the petitioners have submitted an explanation in response to the notice dated 08.12.2025 and the authorities have 6 an intention to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Till then, they would not take any coercive steps. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that all legal grounds need not be pleaded in the affidavit, and they can be urged at the time of arguments. She further contended that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.02.2022 read with Section 121 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity 8the Act9), it is the Panchayat Secretary who can take steps against the construction made by the petitioners, but not the MPDO. 7. Perused the record and consider the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 8. Non consideration of the representations made by the respondent No.8 requesting the authority concerned to demolish the construction made by the petitioners herein in Survey No. 387/1, to an extent of Ac. 0.02 cents and 0.01½ cents, bearing Plot Nos. 11 and 12, W.P.No.10862 of 2024 came to be filed. Admittedly, this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.10862 of 2024, 7 directed the concerned authority to issue notice to the unofficial respondent therein (petitioner herein). 9. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.02.2022, read with Section 121 of the Act, the Gram Panchayat is the competent authority to take steps against any construction being made by any individual and the MPDO has no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue a notice in that regard. Whereas, the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel is that the petitioner did not plead with regard to jurisdiction aspect and the notice has not been questioned on the grounds of jurisdiction. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner all the legal grounds need not be pleaded in the affidavit and can be argued at hearing. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is untenable and the notice dated 08.12.2025 was issued without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 10. As no positive orders are being passed affecting the rights of unofficial respondent No.8, issuing notice to him is hereby dispensed with. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the notice dated 08.12.2025. The authority concerned shall 8 strictly adhere to the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.10862 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, not to take any coercive steps against the subject property. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 23.12.2025 ANS 9 216 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35920/2025 Date: 23.12.2025 ANS