APHC010113732023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5855/2023 Between: 1. KOTHALANKA SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O KRISHNA MURRY AGED ABOUT 55 YRS. HINDU, HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO.1-168, VISVESWARUNI AGRAHARAM, AMALAPURAM-533201. DR BRA KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST AND OTHERS. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR BRA KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPURAM-533201. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, DR BRA KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPURAM-533201. DR.BRA KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 4. THE GRAMPANCHAYAT, , PERURU (V) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. PERURU-533218. DR.BRA KONASEEMA DIST. 5. SAVITHALA VENKATA SATYAVATHI, W/O VENKATA SUBRAHMANYA SASTRY AGED ABOUT 47 YRS. HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/O H.NO.1-168/2, VISWESWARUNI AGRAHARAM, AMALAPURAM-533201. DR BRA KONASEEMA DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents 2 to 4 as against the complaint submitted by the petitioner Dt.25-06-2022 and allowing the 5th respondent to undertake illegal constructions by illegally encroaching into the petitioner's site in an extent of Ac.0.04cents out of Ac.0.08cents in R.S.No.368/12 and also road margin of Visveswaruni Agraharam within Peruru Grampanchayat and in violation of the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and contrary to the building rules as illegal, aribitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to issue any building permission without conducting enquriy as against the complaint of the petitioner Dt.25-06-2022 and in case if any permission is issued ignoring the complaint of the petitioner under the active influence of the 5th respondent, order to cancel the same and consequently order removal of the illegal constructions and grant IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant interim order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to stop all further illegal constructions being undertaken by the 5th respondent by illegally encroaching into the petitioner's site in an extent of Ac.0.04cents out of Ac.0.08cents in R.S.No.368/12 of Visveswaruni Agraharam within Peruru Grampanchayat and also by illegally encroaching into road margin site and in violation of the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and contrary to the building rules pending disposal of the main writ petition and grant Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) 3. V V PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 25.06.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through virtual mode and Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. A reading of the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ affidavit would indicate that there is dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents which is purely civil in nature. The petitioner instead of approaching competent civil Court, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. This Court is not inclined to entertain this kind of writ petitions. It is well settled principle of law that the Courts are within its power and jurisdiction to impose costs as an act of deterrence to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigation and defence, in order to make other litigant think twice before filing vexatious, frivolous and speculative claim or defence as stated in the case of Sathyapal Singh V. Union of India and Another 1. This Writ petition squarely falls within the said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, however, this Court taking lenient view, is inclined to dismiss the writ petition without imposing costs. 1 (2010) 12 SCC 70 4 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court if he is so advised/desire. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 03rd December, 2025 RKS