APHC010397512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20200/2025 Between: 1. KANDRA LAKSHMIKANTAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O.DAGADARTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, DAGADARTHI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. THE MANDAL PRAJAPARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, 2 DAGADARTHI MANDAL, DAGADARTHI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 8. THE DAGADARTHIGRAMPANCHAYAT, DAGADARTHI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. 9. MARELLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O.RAMANAIAH, R/O. R/O.RAGHAVENDRA (E.M. AND T.M) HIGH SCHOOL, DAGADARTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 10. MARELLA SRAVANI, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, R/O.RAGHAVENDRA (E.M. AND T.M) HIGH SCHOOL DAGADARTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to regularize the building constructed in land of an extent 29 Ankanams in Sy.No.818-1, 869 and 879 situated at Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 29.01.2025 without demolishing the construction made in land of an extent 42 Ankanams in Sy.No.818-1, 869 and 879 situated at Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violation of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 29.01.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to demolish the building constructed in land of an extent 42 Ankanams in Sy.No.818-1, 869 and 879 situated at Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and also direct the respondents to reject the application made by the 10th respondent for regularization of building in an extent 29 Ankanams in Sy.no.818-1, 869 and 879 situated at Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may 3 be pleased to direct the respondents to demolish the constructions made in land of an extent 42 Ankanams in Sy.No.818-1, 869 and 879 situated at Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 the respondents not to regularize the building constructed in an extent 29 Ankanams in Sy.No.818-1, 869 and 879 situated at Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: To declare the action of respondents in proposing to regularize the building constructed in the land to an extent of 29 Ankanams in Sy.No.818-1, 869 and 879 situated at Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 29.01.2025 without demolishing the construction made in land in an extent of 42 Ankanams in the same survey numbers, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that earlier when the unofficial respondents tried to make constructions in the subject land which is classified as Canal Poramboke, the petitioner made representations to the 8th respondent and the 8th respondent issued notices to the unofficial respondents, aggrieved by which, the 9th respondent approached this Court by way of writ petitions wherein this Court has directed the 8th respondent to consider the explanation of the unofficial respondent and pass orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, the 8th respondent, after following the procedure, passed orders dated 07.03.2024 directing the 9th respondent 5 to remove the illegal constructions otherwise they will be removed. While so, the 10th respondent, who is the wife of the 9th respondent made an application dated 06.03.2025 for regularization of the subject property as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 29.01.2025. Pursuant to the same, the 6th respondent issued notice dated 17.06.2025 recommending the subject property for regularization as per the said G.O., and calling for objections if any with regard to the same. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his detailed objections on 19.06.2025 to the 6th respondent bringing all the facts to his notice and the constructions have been made on the land classified as Kaluva Poramboke and the same cannot be regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.30. However, the said objections were not forwarded to the 5th respondent and in collusion with the unofficial respondents, the 6th respondent recommended the subject property for regularization. He further contended that if the said regularization is allowed, it not only affects the rights of the petitioner but the same would be contrary to the settled law, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the regularization application made by the unofficial respondents is pending consideration and the authorities will pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law. He further submitted that pending consideration of this matter, the 9th respondent has filed a suit in 6 O.S.No.55/2024 on 04.04.2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, and the same is pending. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Personal notice as directed by this Court on 04.08.2025 on the 9th & 10th respondents has been served. Evidencing the same, a memo dated 14.08.2025 has also been filed. However, they did not choose to put up their appearance before this Court by engaging a counsel. 7. Upon the application made by the unofficial respondents, the official respondents are trying to regularize the construction made in the subject land, which is classified as kaluva poramboke is the grievance of the petitioner. This Court cannot pass any order restraining the unofficial respondents from making any application for regularization. The contention of the petitioner is that despite submitting objections, the respondents are considering the application made by the unofficial respondents. However, the contention of the standing counsel is that the application of the unofficial respondents is pending consideration. When the said application is pending consideration before the committee, this Court cannot go into the merits and demerits of the case and decide the issue whether the application made by the unofficial respondents can be 7 considered or not. In the said view of the fact, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondent authorities concerned shall pass appropriate orders on the application if any made for regularization by the 9th respondent in accordance with law by considering the objections made by the individuals, if any.” 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th December, 2025 RKS