APHC010449282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22800/2025 Between: Satti Narsimha Reddy And Narsireddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D V V S S N H BHUJANGA RAO 2. The Court made the following order: Impugning the order of the 4th respondent vide proceedings R.O.C.No.1/2025 dated 25.08.2023, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Y.Koteswara Rao, 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 is the absolute owner of the subject property admeasuring 104 square yards bearing Door No.1-39 (1,2,3 & 4) assessment no.32 1st ward, beside K.N.Road, Pentapadu village and mandal, west Godavari district. He further submitted that the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 18.06.2025 stating that petitioner has occupied road margin and raised constructions. Despite submitting an explanation dated 23.06.2025 to said show cause notice, without considering the same, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the structures within 48 hours, without following due process of law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are wholly unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of law. If the said impugned order is allowed to subsist, the petitioner would be put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship. As such prayed to pass appropriate order protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submitted that by virtue of Section 128 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as against the impugned order, appeal lies before the Gram Panchayat, without availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court cannot adjudicate the same under Article 226 of the Constitution. As such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has issued the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the subject structures within 48 hours without following due process of law. As rightly contended by learned standing counsel and as per the Section 128 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as against the impugned order, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Gram Panchayat. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has straight away filed the present writ petition. 7. In Union Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon1, the Apex Court has held that it is true that rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass an order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision etc., and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. 8. The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 1 (2010) 8 SCC 110 9. Mere availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, however, legal contingencies that are required to bypass the alternative remedy should be made out while invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In the present case, the petitioners have not made out any exigencies to bypass the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. 10. In view of the same, without going into merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before Gram Panchayat by virtue of Section 128 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii. On such appeal, the Gram Panchayat concerned shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made by this court. iii. Till then, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS