APHC010100232023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5037/2023 Between: 1. KANDURI MANIKAYAM, S/O.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.TIRUPATHIPURAM, ATHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI. 4. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TIRUPATHIPURAM, ATHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents in processing the application for building plan of the petitioner property bearing D.No.4-148 (Old D.No.4-114) of an extent of 343 sq. yards in R.S.No.142/27 of Tirupathipuram Village, Athili Mandal, West Godavari District as arbitrary illegal, capricious and violative of provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act as well as Right to Property guaranteed under Article. 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for approval of building plan forthwith 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 to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's request under notice dt.01-02-2023 regarding the housing plan forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of the respondents in not processing the application for building plan of the petitioner property bearing D.No.4-148 (old D.No.4- 114) admeasuring 343 Sq.yards in R.S.No.142/27 of Tirupathipuram Village, Athili Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, 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 the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property (house) and since the said house was in dilapidated condition, he made an application dated 16.03.2021 to the 4th respondent for approval to construct a new building. Despite considerable time, the respondents have not taken action on the same. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the respondent concerned to pass orders on the petitioner’s application in a time bound manner and prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat on counter contended that the application so made by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the said construction of the petitioner is causing inconvenience by obstructing the drainage passage which is beside the subject property. Further, the Tahsildar, Athili Mandal, has issued endorsement stating that the subject land is sandy and not suitable to construct a house as well as drainage. He further submitted that the petitioner has completed the construction. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said rejection order has not been served on the petitioner and unless a copy of the same is served on him, he cannot take steps against the said orders, as such, prayed this Court to direct the respondents to serve a copy on the petitioner so that he can question the same before appropriate forum. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 7. The 4th respondent has not passed orders on the application dated 16.03.2021 made for approval of constructing a new building in the subject property, is the grievance of the petitioner. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the said application has already been rejected by an endorsement. It is not in dispute that the said endorsement has not been served on the petitioner, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondents are directed to serve a copy of the endorsement/rejection order on the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from today. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner is at liberty to question the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law if he so advised/desire.” 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 November, 2025 RKS