APHC010686302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SENNELA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O PYDI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O LAXMIVANIPALEM, POTHINA MALAYYA PALEM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE EXTENSION OFFICER, VMRDA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE PEDDIPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. MUDILI YELLAJI, S/O LATE CHINNARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. NEAR RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction, mor IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35505/2025 SENNELA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O PYDI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O LAXMIVANIPALEM, POTHINA MALAYYA PALEM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. THE EXTENSION OFFICER, VMRDA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. MUDILI YELLAJI, S/O LATE CHINNARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. NEAR RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction, mor IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SENNELA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O PYDI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O LAXMIVANIPALEM, POTHINA MALAYYA PALEM, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, THE EXTENSION OFFICER, VMRDA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, MUDILI YELLAJI, S/O LATE CHINNARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. NEAR RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, 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 e particularly a 2 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents 1 to 4 in not preventing and not taking steps to remove the unauthorized and illegal construction being carried out by the 5th respondent in the petitioner's property situated in Sy.No.69 of Peddipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, A.P. Building Rules, VMRDA norms, and Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith stop, remove, and demolish the unauthorized constructions raised by the 5th respondent, and to restore the property records to their lawful position, in the interest of justice and equity, 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 be pleased to direct respondents 1 to 4 to immediately stop all ongoing unauthorized construction activities of the 5th respondent in the petitioner's property situated in Sy.No.69 of Peddipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by ensuring that no further construction, alteration, or addition is carried out until final disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 The Court made the following: The grievance of the petitioner is that despite making several representations, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not taking steps to remove the unauthorized and illegal constructions being carried out by respondent No.5 in the petitioner’s property situated in survey No.69 of Peddipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard Sri V.Sreemannarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department, Sri S.Ganesh, learned standing counsel for the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (VMRDA) and Sri Y.Koteswararao, 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 and possessor of the property admeasuring 88.75 sq yards in survey No.69 of Peddipalem village, having purchased the same for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 07.02.2003 vide document No.382 of 2003. After purchase, the petitioner constructed a two-storied RCC building in the said property. As the house of Respondent No.5, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner, was in a dilapidated condition, the petitioner permitted him to temporarily reside in petitioner’s building to oversee the construction work. Taking advantage of the said permission and with an intention to grab the petitioner’s property, respondent No.5 manipulated the Gram Panchayat records and got the property tax mutated in his name without the consent or 4 knowledge of the petitioner. Upon completion of the construction, the petitioner repeatedly requested respondent No.5 to vacate the premises, however, he failed to do so, as such, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.214 of 2023 seeking eviction before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and the same is pending adjudication. He further submitted that during the pendency of the said civil suit, respondent No.5, despite having no manner of right, title or interest over the property, commenced unauthorized construction of second and third floors on the petitioner’s building without obtaining any building plan approvals from the competent authorities. Though the petitioner made several representations, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not taken any action against the illegal constructions. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat placed on record the written instructions of the Panchayat Secretary, Peddipalem Village and submitted that there exists civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and, as such, the Gram Panchayat has not issued any No Objection Certificate (NOC) or building permission for carrying out any construction. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities are not initiating any steps to remove the unauthorized 5 and illegal constructions being carried out by respondent No.5 in the subject property. Per contra, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat contended that no permission has been granted by the Gram Panchayat, as civil disputes are pending between the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that a civil suit vide Original Suit No.214 of 2023 has been filed for eviction before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and the same is pending adjudication. The issues raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of right, title and possession, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. As rightly contended by learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat, in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, the Gram Panchayat does not have jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate, or interfere in the matter. 8. In view of the above, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pursue the suit pending before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam with regard to subject property. 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 22.12.2025 MP 6 246 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.35505 OF 2025 22.12.2025 MP