APHC010046022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 2320/2025 Between: 1. M LAKSHMAMMA,, W/O. C NAGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 6-17/1, MARWADA, KUNGEGOWNIYAR, KUPPAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PANCHAYATH OFFICER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3. THE MANDAL PARISHTH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE KUNGEGOWNIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, KUNGEGOWNIYUR VILLAGE, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. MATTEGUNTA.SUDHIR,STANDING COUNSEL FOR Z.P.PS, M.P.PS, GRAM PANCHAYATS The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri S. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri P.A.K Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sudhir Mattegunta, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Sri P.A.K Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the Counter-Affidavit dated 01.04.2025. 3. The relevant portion of the Counter-Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder: “It is humbly submitted that this Gram Panchayat is not interfering with the property of the petitioner and not taking any steps to vacate the petitioner from the house property in question.” 4. The above extract would indicate that the Grampanchayat is not interfering with the subject property and that it is not taking any steps to vacate the petitioner from the house property in question. 5. Having recorded the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition at the admission stage without going into merit and in terms of the above extract. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 3 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 18.06.2025 DSV