APHC010006332023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] SATURDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 373/2023 Between: 1. RAVIPUDI SUNIL CHOWDARY, S/O CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KANKATAPALEM VILLAGE, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 2. YARRA VENKANNA CHOWDARY,, S/O SESHADRI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/C KANKATAPALEM VILLAGE, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. YARRA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O SESHADRI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KANKATAPALEM VILLAGE, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT RAJ), 2 KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM, A.P. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 4. THE KANKATAPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KANKATAPALEM VILLAGE, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the 2nd respondent in taking appropriate action on the representation dated 19.12.2022 and the high handed action of the respondents 3 and 4 in attempting to lay the CC road in our private bazzar with the width of 12 feet by demolishing our compound walls of our respective properties situated in survey No.29/6, Kankatapalem Village, Bapatla Mandal Bapatla District, without any right and authority is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass 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 pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to lay the CC road in our private bazzar with the width of 12 feet by demolishing our compound walls of our respective properties situated in survey No.29/6, Kankatapalem Village, Bapatla Mandal Bapatla District pending disposal of the 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 3 petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the status quo order dt. 04-01-2023 in WP.No.373/2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following ORDER: Declaring the action of the respondents in trying to lay a CC road with a width of 12 feet in the petitioners’ private bazzar situated in Sy.No.29/6 of Kankatapalem Village, Bapatala Mandal, Bapatla District, by demolishing their compound wall, without considering their representation dated 19.12.2022 and without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Ashok, learned counsel representing Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for 4 Panchayat Raj and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, submitted that when the respondent authorities interfered with the petitioners’ possession and tired to lay a CC road by demolishing the compound wall highhandedly, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 19.12.2022, and as no orders have been passed on the same, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court, by interim order dated 04.01.2023, directed the respondents not to interfere and not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property, which is part and parcel of the sale deed document dated 12.09.1968. He further submitted that though two years lapsed, the respondent authorities did not choose to file their counter affidavits. In view of the same, prayed to dispose of the writ petition treating the interim orders as final orders. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the revenue authorities are not at all interfering with the subject property, as alleged by the petitioners and that the petitioners have unnecessarily made the revenue as party 5 respondent in the present writ petition. As such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri M. Sudheer, learned standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, on instructions, submitted that by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, the respondent-Gram Panchayat has not been interfering with the petitioner’s property. As such, prayed to close the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by all the parties. 7. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions, when the respondent authorities interfered with the subject property, petitioners made a representation dated 19.12.2022. Despite the same, the respondent authorities without following due process of law tried to lay the CC road. This Court, on 04.01.2023, by considering the material available on record, granted interim orders directing the respondent authorities not to interfere and not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. The contention of the respondents is that they are not at all interfering with the subject property. 6 8. In view of the above, as the respondents are not interfering with the subject property by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counter, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “Respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s property situated in Sy.No.29/6 of Kankatapalem Village, Bapatala Mandal, Bapatla District, which is the part and parcel of the sale deed document dated 12.09.1968, except under due process of law.” 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 04.11.2025 ANS 7 280 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 373/2023 Date: 04.11.2025 ANS