1 HN, J W.P.No.34129_2025 APHC010655242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34129/2025 Between: 1. MITTE NEELAKANTA, S/O. CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 15-2-235, OBULACHARI ROAD. BACKSIDE OF PANDURANGA SWAMI TEMPLE, RAYADURGAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE RAYADURGAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RAYADURGAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYADURGAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. MITTE MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D. NO. 15-1-36/1-31, DABBIDI COMPLEX, RAYADURGAM, ANANTAPURAM 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in aking appropriate action against the 4th respondent who is constructing the building by encroaching the road on 2 HN, J W.P.No.34129_2025 southern side of the petitioners house without obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent by considering the petitioner representations dt. 13-11- 2025 and 26-11-2025, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional 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 pleased to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to prevent the construction being made illegally by the 4th respondent on the encroached rastha site abutting to the house of the petitioner on southern side, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 HN, J W.P.No.34129_2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in constructing a building without any approval. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not taking any action against the construction raised by respondent No.4 by allegedly encroaching upon the road on the southern side of the petitioner’s house. The petitioner submitted representations on 13.11.2025 and 26.11.2025. It is stated that the respondent authorities have not taken up any action against the respondent No.4. 2. The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on written instructions, submits that the representations of the petitioner dated 13.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 were duly considered and that a team was deputed to inspect the site. It is submitted that the construction of respondent No.4 is being carried out on the plot of respondent No.4, over which an old structure existed earlier, which was demolished by respondent No.4, and a new structure is being constructed on the same site. It is further stated in the written instructions that respondent No.4 is constructing on a plot admeasuring 26.2 square meters. 3. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent further submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 26.06.2025, Sub-Rule (17) was inserted after Clause (g), and that for residential buildings of plot sizes up to 60 square yards, construction of a ground or ground + First floor does not require prior approval. It is submitted that only an application along with the 4 HN, J W.P.No.34129_2025 drawings is required to be submitted through the online portal, along with payment of a token fee of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also stated in the written instructions that the petitioner and respondent No.4 appear to have private dispute between them, and as such, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2, the writ petition is closed, as respondent No.2 has categorically stated that there is no encroachment upon the public road causing inconvenience to the general public. That apart, the construction raised by respondent No.4 is covered under G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 26.06.2025. 5. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition any further. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:09.12.2025 NKA 5 HN, J W.P.No.34129_2025 233 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34129 of 2025 Date: 09.12.2025 NKA