APHC010155962023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. CHUKKA PENTAYYA, S/O LATE PYDAYYA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O PEDDIPALERN VILLAGE, ANANDAPURARN MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT (ADHAAR NO. 2545 2005 1064) 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P., 3. THE TALLAVALASA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALLAVALASA REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EO VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. A.P., 4. THE VILLAGE SECRETARY, TALLAVALASA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALLAVALASA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. CHILLA KRISHNA, S/O CHILLA APPANNA, TALLAVALASA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, YETEPETA, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. CHILLA SURIBABU, S/O CHILLA APPANNA, TALLAVALASA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,YETEPETA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8003/2023 CHUKKA PENTAYYA, S/O LATE PYDAYYA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O PEDDIPALERN VILLAGE, ANANDAPURARN MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT (ADHAAR NO. 2545 2005 1064) ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P., THE TALLAVALASA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALLAVALASA REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EO), BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. A.P., THE VILLAGE SECRETARY, TALLAVALASA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALLAVALASA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM CHILLA KRISHNA, S/O CHILLA APPANNA, TALLAVALASA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, YETEPETA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. CHILLA SURIBABU, S/O CHILLA APPANNA, TALLAVALASA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,YETEPETA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CHUKKA PENTAYYA, S/O LATE PYDAYYA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O PEDDIPALERN VILLAGE, ANANDAPURARN MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT (ADHAAR NO. 2545 2005 1064) ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P., THE TALLAVALASA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALLAVALASA REP. BY ), BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, THE VILLAGE SECRETARY, TALLAVALASA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALLAVALASA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM CHILLA KRISHNA, S/O CHILLA APPANNA, TALLAVALASA GRAMA BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, CHILLA SURIBABU, S/O CHILLA APPANNA, TALLAVALASA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,YETEPETA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, 2 VISAKAPATNAM 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 for issuance of an order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ Of Mandamus declaring the inaction and decision of respondent no. 3 and 4 in not removing the unauthorized construction made by respondents 5 and 6 in an extent of Ac.A.0.34 covered by survey no.133-4 of Tallavalasa grama panchayat and village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, contrary to Sec.121 of The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and rules framed there under and offends Articles of 14, 21 and 300 of the Constitution of India, consequently directing the respondents no. 3 and 4 to remove the unauthorized construction made by respondents 5 and 6 in an extent of Ac.A.0.34 covered by survey no.133-4 of Tallavalasa grama panchayat and village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and pass Prayer amended as per the Court Order dt.11.09.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 02 of 2023 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 to direct respondents No.3 and 4 not to grant any permission to an unauthorized construction made by respondents 5 and 6 in an extent of Ac.A.0.30 situated in survey no.135 of Tallavalasa grama panchayat and village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 to permit the petitioner to amend the words 'A.0.30 cents in S.No.135" in the existing W.P.No. 8003 of 2023 by substituting as "A0.34 cents in S..No133-4 "at relevant other places wherever the word "A.0.30 cents in S.No.135" mentioned or occurred in the entire Writ Petition and affidavit filed in support thereof and interlocutory application, pending disposal of the min Writ Petition and pass 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners herein/ Respondent No.5 and 6 in the writ petition No 8003 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAM SUNDAR JAYA RAJU SONGA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 2. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 4 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not removing the unauthorized construction made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in an extent of Ac.0.34 cents covered by survey No.133-4 of Tallavalasa Grama Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard Sri S. Sam Sundar Jaya Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri Y.Koteswararao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri Srimannarayana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner got the subject property by way of gift deed executed by his mother dated 16.06.2001. He further submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have illegally and unauthorizedly encroached the subject land and constructed building without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and without paying the fee for approval of house plan. He further submitted that the petitioner had sent a notice dated 07.05.2022 to respondent Nos.2 to 6, requesting them to initiate action against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in accordance with law for the removal of illegal constructions on the subject land, however, no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 5 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents contended that the mother of respondent Nos.5 and 6 had obtained plan approval from the Gram Panchayat, Tallavalasa vide Resolution No.3 dated 06.11.2005 for construction of ground floor building in an extent of 291.04 sq meters covered by S.No.133/4 of Yathapeta Gram Kantam limits and the said construction was carried out in accordance with the approved plan and subsequently the said house was gifted to respondent Nos.5 and 6. He further submitted that the construction carried out by respondent No.6 on first floor is limited to a small portion and the structure built by respondent No.5 consists merely of an iron sheet roof and the said constructions do not pose any health hazards or cause disturbances to the occupants of the building or the general public. 5. Learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat contended that the unofficial respondents had obtained building plan in the year for construction of a ground floor, but certain additional constructions have been raised above the approved building. He further submitted that the authorities would take action in accordance with law. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the roof is not made of iron sheets and that the construction include both the first and second floors as well. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite bringing to the notice of the Gram Panchayat about the unauthorized and illegal constructions raised by the unofficial respondents, no action has been initiated by the Gram Panchayat. The contention of the petitioner is that unofficial respondents have raised first and second floors without permission, whereas the contention of the unofficial respondents is that they raised only iron sheet roof. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate on those aspects. Admittedly, the unofficial respondents have made certain deviations. 9. Taking the submission of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, since the respondent authorities have intention to take steps for removing the encroachments in accordance with law, there is no necessity in keeping this Writ Petition pending by inviting counters. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, at the admission stage itself, with the following direction. “The Gram Panchayat is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and if it is found that encroachments exist, the Gram Panchayat shall take appropriate action in accordance with law by issuing proper notices to the encroachers, granting them sufficient time to submit their explanations and affording them an opportunity of being heard and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners as well as unofficial respondents. The entire 7 exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 10. 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 25.11.2025 MP 8 228 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.8003 of 2023 25.11.2025 MP