APHC010301492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15109/2024 Between: 1. MADDINENI RAMBABU, S/O. SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NUZELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 2. MADDINENI CHALAPATHI RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. RESIDENT OF NUZELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 3. MADDINENI THIRUPAL,, S/O. SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. RESIDENT OF NUZELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATIA DISTRICT, BAPATIA. 3. THE NUZELLAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, NUZELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 2 4. MADDINENI ANJANEYULU, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. NUZELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA 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 a writ or order more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 3 in taking action against the respondent for constructing the building illegally in the village site and constructing the compound by encroaching the road, by considering the representation of the Petitioners dated 27.05.2024, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Panchayat Raj Act and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to consider the representation of the Petitioners dated 27.05.2024 and to prevent the 4th respondent to make illegal construction by encroaching the road, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass 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 Pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner/ respondent No.3 the counter affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 3. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15109/2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…..pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the inaction of the respondent No.3 in taking action against the 4th respondent for constructing the building illegally in the village site and constructing the compound by encroaching the road, by considering the representation of the Petitioners dated 27.05.2024, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Panchayat Raj Act and pass…..” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleaders appearing for Panchayat Raj, Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are permanent residents of the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat. Upon identifying that the 4th respondent had encroached upon a Gram Panchayat road by constructing a house without obtaining permission from the 3rd respondent, the petitioners submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 27.05.2024, requesting appropriate action to be taken 5 against the unauthorized construction made by the unofficial respondent No.4. Despite service of such representation, the 3rd respondent neither considered to halt the ongoing construction, nor did they initiate any proceedings in this regard. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat filed counter-affidavit, wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “4. It is further humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in it order dated 28.01.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011@SLPC No. 3109 of 2011 filed by Jagpal Singh and others versus state of Punjab and others has given directions to the all the state governments that the state governments to prepare scheme for the eviction of illegal/ unauthorized occupation of Grama Sabha/ Grama Panchayats/ Poramboke/ Shamlat lands and the same should be restored to the GramaSabha/ Grama Panchayat for the common use of the villagers of the village. The said scheme should be provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving him/her a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department issued G.O.M.S No. 1898 dated 28.07.2011 framed rules relating to Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Protection of Property Rules for the speedy eviction of the encroachers. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P (PIL) No. 108 of 2022 and Batch. By order dated 20.10.2022 also directed the authorities to take steps for removal of such encroachments by issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers in terms of the procedure prescribed in the above rules of the 2011. So that, the petitioner unauthorizedly encroached upon the land of Gramakantam which is vested with the Grama Panchayat.” 6 5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 has also filed counter-affidavit, wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “6. It is respectfully submitted that as stated supra I have not encroached the public road and in fact the petitioners are not my direct neighbours and their houses are not at all situated adjacent to the road near my house and their houses are far away from my house and in fact in front of the houses of the petitioners the width of road is only 13.5 feet whereas the width of the road in front of my house is 17 feet which cealry shows that there is no any encroachment made by me while constructing my house of the compound wall and the allegations made against me by the petitioners are intentional and malafides.” 6. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 submits that the land in Sy.No.87 of Nuzellapalli Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatla District is Inam land and the petitioners are holding all the rights over the subject land. As far as the allegation of the encroachment in respect of Sy.No.91 is concerned, the same was not canvassed by the petitioners. As stated, even assuming it as an encroachment, since it is not made, the same cannot be considered. 7. He further submitted that the petitioners are not residents of the immediate neighborhood of the 4th respondent, and their residences are situated at a considerable distance from that of the 4th respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioners' houses are not located adjacent to the road which lies in close proximity to the 4th respondent’s residence. 7 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material, it appears that the petitioners are the permanent residents of Nuzellapalli Village. In view of the alleged obstruction to the village road, and having regard to the fact that the petitioners reside within the said village, it is evident that they may be directly impacted by any such encroachment. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioners possess the requisite locus standi to file the present Writ Petition. 9. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, despite the petitioners having submitted a representation dated 27.05.2024, the 3rd respondent failed to take any action to halt the ongoing construction or to address the alleged encroachment. The said representation, though duly received by the 3rd respondent on 27.05.2024, was not acted upon. The 3rd respondent, being a public authority, is duty-bound to consider and act upon any representation or request made to it, particularly when the contents of such representation warrants appropriate action or otherwise, the 3rd respondent shall respond to the representations regarding the action proposed to be taken by the 3rd respondent. Furthermore, a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent reveals that the 4th respondent has, in fact, encroached upon Grama Kantam land to an 8 extent of Ac. 0.012 cents in Sy.No.91 of Nuzellapalli Village, which is classified as Grama Kantam land. 10. It is further stated that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors1 that all the State Governments and local authorities are specifically directed for eviction of any illegal, unauthorized occupations and encroachments made for common use of the villagers and also stated that as per the Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P(PIL) No.108 of 2022 and batch dated 20.10.2022, the 3rd respondent is under obligation to take steps for removal of unauthorized constructions, if any, by following due process of law. 11. In view of the specific contentions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Gram Panchayat, the respondent Gram Panchayat is at liberty to proceed further by following due process of law as contemplated. 12. Considering the contentions made by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4, the land in Sy.No.87 of Nuzellapalli Village is classified as enam land and if any encroachments made in Sy.No.91 by the unofficial respondent No.4 while constructing the building, the 3rd 1 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1123 9 respondent-Gram Panchayat is at liberty to remove encroachments, if any, made by the unofficial respondent, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and other stakeholder, if any. 13. 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 10.09.2025 SCH 10 281 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.15109 of 2024 10.09.2025 SCH