APHC010039202023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1994/2023 Between: 1. N CHAYADEVI, W/O. SESHAVALI, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H. NO. 1-31, KURUBAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 2. N. NARAYANAMMA, , W/O. VARADAPPA, AGED 72 YEARS, 0CC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H. NO. 1-131, KURUBAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, EARLIER ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, EARLIER ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. ERRAMANCHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY 2 ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, ERRAMANCHI, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, EARLIER ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 5. THE SARPANCH, ERRAMANCHI GRAM PANCHAYAT, ERRAMANCHI, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, EARLIER ANANTHAPURAMU 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 order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents 4 and 5 in trying to demolish the compound wall of the petitioners constructed in Survey No. 332-2 and 332-3 of Kurubavandlapalli Village, Penukonda Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapuramu District) as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj and unconstitutional and consequently direct respondents not to demolish the compound wall of the petitioners erected in Survey No. 332-2 and 332-3 of Kurubavandlapalli Village, Penukonda Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapuramu District) and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 respondents 4 and 5 not to demolish the compound wall of the petitioners erected in Survey No. 332-2 and 332-3 of Kurubavandlapalli Village, Penukonda Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapuramu District), pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMESH BABU TALLURI 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: Declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 & 5 in trying to demolish the compound wall of the petitioners constructed in Sy.No.332-2 and 332-3 of Kurubavandlapalli Village, Penukonda Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapuramu District), without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Sri Ramesh Babu Talluri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that when the respondent authorities tried to interfere with the petitioners’ property highhandedly, the present writ petition has been filed and this Court, by order dated 30.01.2023, directed the respondent 4 authorities not to interfere with the petitioners’ property without following due process of law. He further submitted that in the counter affidavit, the respondent authorities have categorically stated that when the Gram Panchayat tired to lay a drain, an objection was raised and the said layout was stopped. It is further stated that if the respondent authorities have any intention to lay a drain in the future, they would follow the due process of law. As such, requested to record said submissions and prayed to dispose of the writ petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on counter, submitted that they are not interfering with the petitioners’ property and that if they have any intention to lay a drain in the future, the same would be done by following due process of law. As such, prayed to close the writ petition. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are trying to demolish their compound wall constructed in Sy.No.332-2 and 332-3 without following the procedure contemplated under law. In the counter it was categorically stated that though the Gram Panchayat concerned proposed to lay a drain, upon objection raised by the petitioners, such proposals were stopped. It is further stated in the counter 5 that if the respondent authorities have any intention to lay any drain in the future, they would follow due process of law. 6. As the respondent authorities have an intention to follow law, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending and this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ compound wall constructed in Sy.No.332-2 and 332-3 of Kurubavandlapalli Village, Penukonda Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (earlier Ananthapuramu District), except in accordance with law.” 7. 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 Date: 04.11.2025 ANS 6 293 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1994/2023 Date: 04.11.2025 ANS