IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11744 OF 2025 Between: Guttula Suri Babu, S/o G Maraiah, Aged 50 years Resident of Door No. 4-3/2 Settibalija Peta Bikkavolu Mandal, Konkuduru East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Panchayat Officer (DPO), Bommuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural and Mandal, East Godavari District. 3. The Mandal Extension Officer, Bikkavolu Village and Mandal, East Godavari District 4. The Konkuduru Gram Panchayat, Rep.by it's Panchayat Secretary Konkuduru Village, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of fhe 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 pr direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondentsmore particularly Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned proceedings dated » 28.04.2025 for removal of the shed in front of my house at Settibalija peta, Konkuduru Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari without passing any orders to the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.04.2025 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to Rules and violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Gonstitution of India apart from violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession; of the petitioner ^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 respondents not to remove the alleged encroachments as mentioned in the impugned proceedings without passing orders to the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.04.2025 and further direct the respondents to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in W.P (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 pending disposal of the main writ petition • Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ rural dev Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: Order * f APHC010237432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] 0 THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO: 11744/2025 Between: 1.GUTTULA SURI BABU, S/0 G MARAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 4-3/2 SETTIBALIJA PETA BIKKAVOLU MANDAL, KONKUDURU EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER DPO, BOMMURU VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.THE MANDAL EXTENSION OFFICER, BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4.THE KONKUDURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY IT'S PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KONKUDURU VILLAGE, BIKKAVOLU MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri E. Sesha Mahesh Babu, Petitioner: Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat and Sri Panuku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. learned Counsel for the Writ appearing on behalf of Sri Y. ZPPs, MPPs and Gram 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of to the notice this Court to the explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioner issued by the Gram Panchayat dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P.3). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also taken this Court through which IS issued by the Panchayat Secretary on 28.04.2025 giving three days time to the Writ Petitioner to voluntarily which, the Gram Panchayat shall the impugned notice remove the encroachments, failing remove the encroachments and collect the costs from the Writ Petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also taken this Court through the photographs in Ex.P.6. He would submit that the land infront of the house belong to him had been inherited by him by Partition Deed dated 12.05.2014. Learned Counsel for the taken this Court to the photocopy of the unregistered partition deed dated 12.05.2014. way of unregistered - Writ Petitioner has 4. Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for appearing on behalf of Sri Y. ZPPs, MPPs and Gram Panchayat submits that the Gram Panchayat has issued similar notices that of notice dated 04.04.2025 to various other encroachers in the road. It is submitted that the encroachments have as same taken place along with the road and the Gram Panchayat has issued the without any discrimination. notices to all such persons He would submit that the Gram Panchayat has specifically requested the Writ Petitioner, vide notice dated 04.04.2025 to place on record any material to establish the title over the subject property. It 3 is also stated in the notice dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P.3.) to clear the encroachments within seven days. He would submit that sufficient time was granted to the Writ Petitioner, whereas the Writ Petitioner had failed to prove any title over the disputed site and the shed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In re : Directions in the matter of demolition of structures in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.162 of 2022 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.328 of 2022, which was delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 13.11.2024. 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Para No.91 of the Order and would submit that the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been followed by the Official Respondents, inasmuch as, the notice did not contain the nature of the unauthorized construction, the details of the specific violation and the grounds of demolition etc.. 7. This Court has perused the initial notice issued to the Writ Petitioner dated 04.04.2025. This Court has also perused the photographs, the unregistered partition deed and the explanation give by the Writ Petitioner on 08.04.2025. This Court has also sifted through the impugned notice dated 28.04.2025 (Ex.P.1). The impugned notice would indicate that the shed erected by the Writ Petitioner has not been put to use by him for some time. It is also stated that the Writ Petitioner has not maintaining any cattle in the shed and that the said shed has been erected by the Writ Petitioner on the space earmarked by the Gram Panchayat. As indicated earlier by Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPs, MPPs and Gram Panchayat that without any discrimination, the Gram Panchayat has issued notices to all the encroachers along the road margin, and thereforefthere is no discrimination on the part of the Gram Panchayat. 8. Having regard to the facts, Panchayat has followed this Court is of the view that the Gra necessary procedure in issuing initial notice In response to the said notice, the Writ 04.04.2025 to the Writ Petitioner. Petitioner has submitted his on explanation on 08.04.2025. Having considered the same, the Gram Panchayat has rejected the request of the Writ Petitioner and passed the impugned Order. 9. Having considered the well as impugned notice dated that the Gram Panchayat has contents of the notice dated 04.04.2025 as 28.04.2025 (Ex.P.1), this Court is of the view H violated the procedure laid Honble Supreme Court in /„ re ; 0/recfons stwctures m Writ Petition (Civii) No. 295 No. 162 of 2022 and Writ Petition down by the in the matter of demolition of of 2022, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2022 (Criminal) in respect of issuance of notice. atorreXl ^ ■ question is only a shed. The shown in the photograph very nature of the shed is at Page-43. It is also stated very clearly in the has not been putting the shed would also indicate that the impugned notice that the Writ Petitioner kind of use. The photograph for any shed is empty with asbestos roof and pillars shed, and therefore, fifteen days Apex Court would not be on four sides. It will take few hours to remove the time as indicated in the Order of the Hon'ble applicable to the findings, this Court is of the view that there Accordingly, the Writ Petition i case of the Writ Petitioner. 11. In view of the above no merit in the IS present Writ Petition, dismissed. No Order as to Costs. IS 5 12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// -O To, SECTfOr^OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO, Standing Counsel for ZPPS, MPPS, Gram Panchayat [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies gsg i •» HIGH COURT DATED; 01/05/2025 ORDER S 2 5 SEP 2025 ^ Current Section , WP.No.11744of 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS