APHC010690662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36354/2025 Between: 1. KUDUMULA VENKATA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62YRS, OCC- BUSINESS R/O VELVADAM VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL NTR DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 11319BABCOCKBEND SAN ANTONIO TEXAS, USA 78249 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE MYLAVARAM GRAMPANCHAYAT, MYLAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL NTR DISTRICT REPT. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. 3. MALLELA VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 59YRS, R/O D.NO.1-166, TOLUKODU VILLAGE MYLAVARAM MANDAL NTR DISTRICT 4. PAMULAPATI RAJA REDDY, S/O VENKATESWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58YRS R/O H.NO.16-63, MYLAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL NTR 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the delay and inaction of the respondent No.1 2 in restoring the 5ft., width road vested with the 1st respondent Grampanchayat situated towards Northern side of the land of the petitioner at 13th Ward, Vivekananda School Road, Mylavaram Grampanchayat by removing the encroachment made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as arbitrary, illegal and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to remove the encroachment made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and restore the 5ft., width public road situated towards Northern side of the land of the petitioner at 13th Ward, Vivekananda School Road, Mylavaram Grampanchayat in the interest of justice. 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 direct the respondent No.1 to remove the encroachment made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and restore the 5ft., width public road situated towards Northern side of the land of the petitioner at 13th Ward, Vivekananda School Road, Mylavaram Grampanchayat pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: Despite issuance of notice to the authorities concerned regarding the encroachments made by the unofficial respondents, no action has been initiated for restoring the 5-feet width road, is the grievance of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Sri Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, 3 learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Smt. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the unofficial respondents have high-handedly encroached upon the road situated on the northern side of the petitioner’s land in 13th Ward, within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-Gram Panchayat. Despite issuance of a legal notice seeking removal of the encroachments, no action has been taken. He submitted that it would suffice, for the present, if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent- Gram Panchayat to act upon the legal notice in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, submitted that there is no material on record to show that the alleged legal notice was served on the Gram Panchayat. Further, the notice filed along with the writ petition does not bear the signature of the advocate who purportedly issued it and appears to be only a typed copy. In such circumstances, seeking a direction to the Gram Panchayat to act upon the said legal notice does not arise. Without approaching the Gram Panchayat, directly knocking the doors of this Court is not proper and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 5-feet width road vested with the 1st respondent-Gram Panchayat, situated on the northern side of the petitioner’s land, is under encroachment and the same has not been restored 4 despite issuance of a legal notice. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, there is no material evidencing that the said legal notice was served on the Gram Panchayat. Further, the alleged legal notice does not contain the signature of the advocate concerned. Without approaching the Gram Panchayat, directly invoking the writ jurisdiction does not arise. 8. Thus, to entertain a Writ of Mandamus, it is a pre-condition that the aggrieved person should have approached the competent authority against whom such a direction is sought. Further, proof of such representation and its acknowledgment by the competent authority must be available on record. This is a mandatory requirement for entertaining a writ petition seeking a direction to consider a representation. This Court is of the considered opinion that even the legal right sought to be enforced must be clearly pleaded and established in the writ petition. 9. In view of the legal position stated supra and to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation to the 1st respondent-Gram Panchayat within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the authorities concerned shall examine the same and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. If the allegations are found to be correct, the Gram Panchayat shall initiate action by issuing a proper show-cause notice, inviting explanation and affording an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter take further 5 steps as warranted. If the allegations are found to be incorrect, the Gram Panchayat shall inform the petitioner accordingly. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.” As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 30th December, 2025 SNI 6 260 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36354/2025 Date: 30.12.2025 SNI