APHC010153642020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9481/2020 Between: 1. SMT. SHAIK FATHIMA,, W/O. LATE MD. HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H. NO. 2-112, STATE BANK ROAD, YERRAGONDA PALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVARTHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT., ONGOLE. A.P. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, YERRAGONDA PALEM MANDAL, YERRAGONDA PALEM, PRAKSAM DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, YERRAGONDA PALEM VILLAGE, YERRAGONDA PALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 2 6. MARRI BHARTHI DEVI, W/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, MILLAMPALLI MAZARA VEGINATI KOTAIAH NAGAR, KOMAROL POST, YERRAGONDAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. ANNAM RAJU DEVASENA DEVA SENA DEVI, W/O LATE LAKSMI NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, YERRAGONDA PALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 topleased to issue an order or orders, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of the Un-official Respondents i.e., Respondents 6 and 7 in proceeding with the construction on public Rasta as illegal, arbitrary, biased, un- constitutional against the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the Respondents 3 and 4 immediately probe in to the matter and demolish the illegal constructions on a public Rasta otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss as the approach to the western road will be lost by me and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 Official Respondents to stop the illegal construction of the Un- official Respondents on the public Rasta in Yerrogondapalem Gram Panchayat pending disposal of the above writ petiton and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GIRI BABU MARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM 3 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 4. V VINOD K REDDY 5. SWAPNA PRIYA CHAKKILAM The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9481/2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…..pleased to issue an order or orders, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of the Un-official Respondents i.e., Respondents 6 and 7 in proceeding with the construction on public Rasta as illegal, arbitrary, biased, un-constitutional against the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the Respondents 3 and 4 immediately probe in to the matter and demolish the illegal constructions on a public Rasta otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss as the approach to the western road will be lost by me and pass…..” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unofficial respondents Nos.6 and 7 are proceeding with the construction of a house on a public pathway, thereby obstructing the petitioner’s right of ingress and egress, 5 and also blocking public access to the bus stand and the main road. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has furnished a copy of written instructions vide R.C.No.11/2025, dated 09.09.2025, stating that the unofficial respondent No.6 namely Smt. Marri Bharati Devi, was granted a house site patta for residential house. It is further stated that she obtained necessary building permission vide B.L.R.No.18/2019, and accordingly, the said construction was completed within her premises. According to the said instructions, respondent No.6 did not encroach upon any portion of the public rasta, as alleged by the petitioner. While so, the Mandal Revenue Surveyor representing the 4th respondent has also submitted a report, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the notice issued by this Court and due to the PGRS complaint of the petitioner, the Mandal Surveyor has physically inspected and verified the subject property along with the Village Revenue Officer and found that the land of the petitioner was situated in Sy.No.54. As per the FMB, it is in Sy.No.54/1B1A, there is no notified rasta, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that in the absence of any record showing that the subject road has been notified or classified as a 6 public road, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under public law remedies, and more particularly, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the respondents, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat and on perusal of the written instructions dated 09.09.2025, the fact remains that there is no public rasta either as per the Gram Panchayat records or as per the revenue records existing in Sy.No.54/1B1A as alleged by the petitioner and further it is clarified that the petitioner’s property was situated in Sy.No.54. Further, the FMB in respect of Sy.No.54 does not contain any classified road as alleged by the petitioner. 7. In the absence of any evidence to show that the alleged road was classified and notified by the public authority as a public road, this Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been using the subject road for his ingress and egress for several decades, it may be a private road, and a right of easement might have been attached to the subject road. If that is so, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the appropriate jurisdiction to assert her legal or easementary rights 7 with respect to the subject road between herself and the other parties/unofficial respondents. 8. As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if any representation is pending with the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat, for declaring the subject road as a Gram Panchayat road, or if the relevant records of the Panchayat indicate otherwise, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.09.2025 SCH 8 233 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.9481 of 2020 24.09.2025 SCH