::1:: APHC010351672020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 23397/2020 Between: 1. GUNNA RAGUPATHI, S/O. ATCHANNA AGE. 45, BALIGAM VILLAGE, HARIPURAM POST MANDASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANDASA MANDAL MANDASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 5. THE BALIGAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, BALIGAM, MANDASA MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ::2:: ...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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in laying road highhandedly through the house site belongs to the petitioner admeasuring 103.25 Sq. Yards in R.S. No. 90 of Baligam Village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District which was purchased by his father Sri. Late Gunna Atchanna vide registered sale deed bearing No. 211/1989 of Mandasa Sub-Registrar, in resorting to dispossess the petitioner from the said land without following due process of law and in issuing the notice dated 02.12.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, against to the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct 5th respondents to remove the road laid in the said land, not to dispossess the petitioner from the above land and set aside the notice dated 02.12.2020 issued by the 5th respondent in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ::3:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION Nos. 23397 of 2020 This Court made the following: ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5 – Gram Panchayat and perused the material placed on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s family is having house site admeasuring 330 Sq. Yds in Baligam Village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District since time immemorial. Petitioner’s father Late Gunna Atchanna purchased vacant land situated on the southern side of their house site in an extent of 103.25 Sq. Yds situated in R.S.No.90 of Baligam Village through registered sale deed bearing Document No.211/1989 of Mandasa Sub-Registrar. Since then petitioner and his family have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land without interference from any corner whatsoever. After the death of petitioner’s father the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and constructed house in their ancestral ::4:: house site and the same was assessed by the 4th Respondent vide House No.253. 3. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent herein without initiating any proceedings in accordance with law, laid gravel road in the middle of the subject land. The subject land does not belongs to the 5th respondent and there is no road in the middle of the said land either physically or as per the records. The 5th respondent now making attempts to take the possession of the part of the land situated on the southern side of the road laid through petitioner’s land highhandedly. The 5th respondent issued notice dated 02.12.2020 alleging that petitioner caused damages to the road laid with the funds of the 5th respondent adjacent to the village secretariat, from the SC Veedhi to Haripuram-Mandasa BT Road. In fact, there is no such road from SC Veedhi to Haripuram-Mandasa BT road as per the records. Aggrieved by the action of the 5th Respondent the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 10.12.2020 as under: “Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 and he seeks time to get instructions. This Court observes that already there is an order in W.P.No.8869 of 2020, wherein a notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act was set aside. ::5:: Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that another notice was issued virtually on the same ground on 02.12.2020, and the road has been laid in part of the property. Considering the submissions made, the work of laying road or dispossessing the petitioner from his site, measuring 103.25 Sq. Yds in R.S.No.90 of Baligam Village, Mandasa Mandal, stay till 17.12.2020. List on 17.12.2020, in the meanwhile learned counsel for respondents are directed to get instructions. 4. On the other hand, Respondent No.5 – Gram Panchayat filed stay vacate petition wherein it is stated as under: “5. It is submitted that already since long time there is a gravel road. Now the Gam Panchayat intended to lay the CC road in view of the Village Secretariat and Rythu Barosa Kendram are being established. We are not touching the private property of the petitioner. If the petitioner intends to survey the land and fix the boundaries, this Gram Panchayat is ready and willing to get the survey of the land of the petitioner which is situated on the Southern side of the road and the Panchayat site which is situated on the Northern side of the road through the revenue authorities. Hence, the petitioner has no title or right over the panchayat site which is situated on the Northern side of the existing gravel road wherein we are constructing the Village Secretariat building and also proposed to construct the Rythu Barosa Kendram. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to conduct survey and demarcation by referring to revenue records as well as Sale Deed bearing Document No.211/1989 holding by the petitioner herein by following due process of law and as per the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ::6:: and after completion of such survey and demarcation, if it is found that any portion of the petitioner’s land has been occupied for the purpose of laying the road by the 5th Respondent, then the respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings either to acquire the said portion of land or to restore the same to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months thereafter. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 16.10.2025 krk ::7:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 184 WRIT PETITION No:23397 of 2020 16.10.2025 krk