APHC010170712021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9793/2021 Between: 1. B. CHENGALRAYA REDDY, S/O. B. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. PERUMALLAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517569. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO 135, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYETIRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYETI OFFICER, VEDURUKUPPAM MD, CHITTOOR DIST. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. THE MPDO, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 9. THE GRAMA PANCHAYETI, PERUMALLAPALLI VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 toto issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding for construction of RYTHU BHAROSA KENDRAM over the petitioners property an extent ofAc.0.60 cents in Survey No. 108/5 at Perumallapalli village of Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor district, without passing any resolution of Grama Panchayeti and conducting of any Grama Sabha as contemplated in GO MS NO 188 dated 21.07.2011 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and Sec 4(3) and 6 (2) of THE ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Article 14,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land without following the procedure established by law 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 the respondents not to proceed further in making any construction over the petitioners property an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Survey No. 108/5 at Perumallapalli village of Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittor district Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. V VINOD K REDDY (SC FOR ZP MPDO GP) 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Challenging the action of the respondents in proceeding with the construction of a Rythu Bharosa Kendram on the petitioner’s property to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents situated in Sy.No.108/5 at Perumallapalli Village of Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law, the present writ petition is filed. 4 2. Heard Sri Shah, learned counsel representing Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that when the respondent authorities are proposing to proceed with the construction of a Rythu Bharosa Kendram on the petitioner’s property without following due process of law, the present writ petition has been filed. He further submitted that the respondent authorities, in their counter affidavit at Para No.5, have categorically stated that the proposal for construction of the Rythu Bharosa Kendram is not on the petitioner’s property, but on the land situated in Sy.No.67/18 of the said village. In view of the same, there remains nothing for adjudication, as such, prayed to close the writ petition. 5 4. Learned Standing counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleaders do not refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. On perusal of the counter affidavit, particularly Para No.5, it would go to show that the respondent authorities are not proposing to proceed with the construction of the Rythu Bharosa Kendram on the petitioner’s property, but are proceeding with the construction in Sy.No.67/18 of the said village. In view of the same, there remains nothing for adjudication in the writ petition and is liable to be closed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. 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: 22.12.2025 ANS 6 274 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9793/2021 Date: 22.12.2025 ANS