APHC010278862021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SAMPATHIRAO SURYA RAJU, S/O. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. ROTARY NAGAR, TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER T, MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TEKKALI PANCHAYAT, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16203/2021 SAMPATHIRAO SURYA RAJU, S/O. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. ROTARY NAGAR, TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER T, MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TEKKALI PANCHAYAT, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SAMPATHIRAO SURYA RAJU, S/O. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. ROTARY NAGAR, TEKKALI, TEKKALI MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER T, EKKALI THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, TEKKALI, TEKKALI THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TEKKALI PANCHAYAT, TEKKALI ...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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to demolish the portion of the petitioner's property in 240 Sq. Yds. Yds. situated at Survey No. 509/2D of Tekkali Nagar Panchayat, Srikakulam Districtwithout following due process of law is highly illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner from the property and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 respondents not to demolish the portion of the petitioner's property building with an extent of total 240 Sq. yds situated in Survey No. 509/2D of Tekkali Nagar Panchayat, Srikakulam District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that without following the due process of law, respondents are attempting to demolish the portion of the petitioner’s property in 240 sq yards situated at survey No.509/2D of Raghunadhapuram village of Tekkali Nagar Panchayat, Srikakulam District. 2. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department and Sri Y.Koteswararao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner got the subject property by way of a registered gift deed dated 27.01.2010. After acquiring the said property, the petitioner constructed a building and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption from anyone. He further submitted that one Metta Krishna Murthy filed Writ Petition No. 8365 of 2019 by making false allegations that the petitioner had encroached upon a Panchayat road to an extent of 120 square yards for the purpose of construction of the building and obtained an order dated 08.02.2021, directing the respondent authorities to survey the property, verify the Panchayat road, and, if any encroachment is found, to remove the same. He also submitted that the petitioner submitted applications along with building plan for approval to the respondent authorities on 20.02.2019 and 28.08.2019. Despite receipt 4 of the said applications, the respondent authorities have neither considered nor approved the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19372 of 2020, which is presently pending adjudication. He further submitted that, without following the due process of law, the respondent authorities are attempting to demolish a portion of the petitioner’s building. In the event of demolition, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and hardship, and his livelihood would be hampered. As such, the present Writ Petition has been filed, and this Court, by order dated 04.08.2021, granted an interim order directing the respondents not to demolish the subject property pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Hence, prayed to pass orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.6, contended that the petitioner had encroached upon the road and the drainage canal and constructed the building without obtaining the requisite permission. When the petitioner made an application for grant of building permission in the year 2019, without paying the requisite fee and without submitting the necessary documents, the Gram Panchayat rejected the same. Hence, the structures raised by the petitioner are deemed to have been constructed without permission. Therefore, the respondent authorities are taking steps to remove the encroachments made by the petitioner by following the due procedure of 5 law and in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8365 of 2019. As such, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are attempting to demolish a portion of the petitioner’s property without following the due process of law. However, a perusal of the counter affidavit indicates that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of building permission without paying the requisite fee and without submitting the relevant documents, and consequently, the Gram Panchayat rejected the same and that the Gram Panchayat is taking steps to remove the encroachments allegedly made by the petitioner by following the procedure established by law. 7. Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, since the respondent authorities have stated that they would follow due process of law for removal of encroachments, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the same with the following direction: “The respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the portion of the petitioner’s property in 240 sq yards situated at survey No.509/2D of Raghunadhapuram 6 village, Tekkali Nagar Panchayat, Srikakulam District, except under due process of law.” 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 11.12.2025 MP 7 289 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.16203 of 2021 11.12.2025 MP