APHC010614472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. PINISETTI VENKATA KRISHNAMMA, S/O LATE SAMUDRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. VISWANADHA CHANDRAMMA,, ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O RELLI GAVIRANMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM CANTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BALAJI NAGAR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. THE M P D O, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. THE JAMMADEVIPETA GRAM PANCHAYAT, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, JAMMADEVIPETA, HAMLET OF MALLIVEDU, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 31700/2025 PINISETTI VENKATA KRISHNAMMA, S/O LATE SAMUDRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM VISWANADHA CHANDRAMMA,, W/O APPALA KONDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O RELLI GAVIRANMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT EPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM CANTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BALAJI NAGAR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE M P D O, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE JAMMADEVIPETA GRAM PANCHAYAT, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, JAMMADEVIPETA, HAMLET OF MALLIVEDU, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PINISETTI VENKATA KRISHNAMMA, S/O LATE SAMUDRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM W/O APPALA KONDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O RELLI GAVIRANMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT EPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM CANTONMENT, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BALAJI NAGAR, THE M P D O, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE JAMMADEVIPETA GRAM PANCHAYAT, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, JAMMADEVIPETA, HAMLET OF MALLIVEDU, 2 L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 7. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, L.KOTA POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 8. GEDELA APPANNA DORA, S/O LATE GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 9. GEDELA VENKATA SURYA RAMU, , S/O.LATE GURU MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. RELLI GAVIRAMMAPETA VILLAGE, L. KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 10. BEHARA APPALA KONDA APPARAO, S/O. LATE SANYASI PATRUDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. JAMMADEVIPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 11. BEHARA SANKARA RAO, S/O. LATE SANYASI PATRUDU. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. JAMMADEVIPETA VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM, 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in not taking any action by Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in respect of illegal and unauthorized construction carrying by Respondent Nos. 8 to 11, in the land in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.36/4-C of Jammadevipeta Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District, which is illegal, irregular, unconstitutional, arbitrary against to the Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to the provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to take steps forthwith against the illegal and unauthorized construction carrying by Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 by demolishing thereby direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 7 to take stringent action against Respondent Nos.8 to 11 for their high handed demolition of Shops and sheds of Petitioners 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 to 3 direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 forthwith stop the illegal and unauthorized construction carrying by Respondent Nos.8 to 11 in the land in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.36/4-C of Jammadevipeta Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B S MANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA 4 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not taking any action in respect of illegal and unauthorized construction carrying out by respondent Nos.8 to 11 in the land to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in survey No.36/4-C of Jammadevipeta Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Heard Sri B.Satyendra Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4, Smt Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 7, Sri Y.Koteswararao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Mandal Praja Parishads appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Sri Kodi Srinivasarao, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Simhachalam, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 permitted petitioner No.2 to run a Tea stall in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in the site situated towards North-east corner of subject property by erecting two sheds and petitioner No.1 has also erected sheds in the remaining portion of the property and leased them out to different tenants for running their respective business and the tenants have been paying taxes to the Gram Panchayat in respect of the said structures. He further submitted that when 5 respondent Nos.8 to 11 started threatening to forcibly occupy the subject property, the petitioners filed O.S.No.478 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for permanent injunction. An ad-interim injunction was initially granted in their favour; however, the said suit subsequently came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred first appeal vide A.S.No.94 of 2025 before the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram which is pending. He further submitted that taking advantage of the dismissal of O.S.No.478 of 2015, respondent Nos.8 to 11 highhandedly entered into the subject land by bringing JCBs and demolished the existing structures, shops and sheds situated in the subject property including the shop of petitioner No.2 and other tenants, who are carrying on their respective business. A crime was registered against respondent No.9 and others to that effect. He further submitted that pending appeal, without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, the unofficial respondents are proceeding with the construction. Despite bringing the same to the notice of gram panchayat by way of representation dated 30.10.2025, no action was initiated by the Gram Panahcayat. He further submitted that it would suffice if a direction is given to the Gram Panchayat to take action against the illegal/unauthorized constructions made by unofficial respondents in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat contended that since the first appeal is pending before the competent Civil Court, the petitioners cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court 6 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that two parallel proceedings on the same cause of action cannot be entertained simultaneously. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for unofficial respondents submitted that having already lost the suit before the competent Civil Court, the petitioners cannot agitate or ventilate the same grievance before the Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that respondent No.10 died one year ago and without verifying the said fact, the petitioners erroneously made him as party respondent in the Writ Petition. He further contended that admittedly the construction alleged to have been carried out by the unofficial respondents is merely a shed, for which no building permission is required. He further submitted that if the petitioners seek any relief, they may pursue their remedies before the appropriate Civil Court where the appeal is already pending for consideration. Hence, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The short point that falls for consideration before this Court is that whether the construction carried out by the private parties in a private land, without obtaining the requisite building plan approval, can be entertained 7 under the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court, while the first appeal in respect of the subject matter is pending before the competent Civil Court. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the unofficial respondents are proceeding with the construction illegally and unauthorizedly without obtaining the requisite building plan. Despite bringing the same to the notice of the Gram Panchayat, no action has been taken by the authorities. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents contended that no constructions, other than a shed, are being carried out and for such shed, no building permission is required. 9. In this background, Section 121 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is relevant and is extracted hereunder. “121. Construction of building - No piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the permission of the gram panchayat granted in accordance with the provisions of any rules or bye-laws made under this Act, relating to the use of building sites or the construction or reconstruction of buildings: Provided that the Government may, in respect of all gram panchayats or with the consent of the gram panchayat, in respect of any particular gram panchayat or portion thereof, exempt all buildings or any class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of any rules or bye-laws made under this Act.” Section 121 clearly envisages that prior permission from the Gram Panchayat is required for the construction of any building. 8 10. Section 2(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 reads as follows: (3) “building” includes a house, out-house, shop, stable, latrine, shed (other than a cattle shed in an agricultural land), hut, wall and any other such structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material whatsoever; Section 2(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act clearly defines a building which includes a ‘shed’. 11. As per the provisions of the A.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, if the unofficial respondents intend to construct a shed, they are required to obtain prior permission from the Gram Panchayat. In view of the same, the contention of the unofficial respondents that no permission is required to be obtained is untenable. The respondents, however, contended that since a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is pending before the competent Civil Court, this Court cannot entertain the Writ petition. 12. Admittedly, it was stated by learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that no building permission was obtained prior to the construction of the shed. In that view of the matter, it is the statutory duty of the Gram panchayat to take steps against the illegal or unauthorized constructions made by the unofficial respondents by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.67 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 26.02.2002 r/w Section 121 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Mere pendency of civil suit between two individuals will not come in the way of the Gram Panchayat to take action against the unauthorized construction made by the unofficial respondents. 9 13. Moreover, this Court is not inclined to go into aspect as to who is in the possession of the subject property, since the matter is subjudice before the competent Civil Court. Taking the submission of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, since the unofficial respondents have admitted that they have not obtained permission before construction of the shed, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction. “The respondent authorities are directed to take appropriate action against the unauthorized constructions, if any made without obtaining permission, in accordance with law, by issuing proper notices to all encroachers including the unofficial respondents, granting them sufficient time to submit their explanations and affording them an opportunity of being heard and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners as well as unofficial respondents. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 14. 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 24.11.2025 MP 10 257 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.31700 OF 2025 24.11.2025 MP