Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56667 (AP)

RANGASTHALA VRUTHI KALAAKARULA SANKHEMA SANGHAM v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/469/2023 · 2025-11-03

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010008062023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 469/2023 Between: 1. RANGASTHALA VRUTHI KALAAKARULA SANKHEMA SANGHAM, REGD. SOCIETY NO.4/2005, PEDANINDRAKOLANU, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GUNTUPALLI PHANI KIRAN, S/O.NAGESWARA RAO, R/O.H.NO.5-149, KOLLERU ROAD, PEDANINDRAKOLANU, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, , ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, , NIDAMARRU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 5. THE PEDANINDRAKOLANU GRAM PANCHAYAT, PEDANINDRAKOLANU VILLAGE, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT (NOW ELURU DISTRICT), REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. RANGASTHALA VRUTHI KALAAKARULA SANKSHEMA SANGHAM, REGD. SOCIETY NO.312/2019, DEVARAGOPAVARAM, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents more particularly the Respondents 2 to 4 herein in considering the representation submitted through Spandana program vide Request No. ELR202210103091 dated 10-10-2022 by the petitioner and initiating appropriate action against the 5th respondent herein who is illegally acted on the letter made by the 6th respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides violative of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 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 2 to 4 herein forthwith to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner through "Spandana" program vide Request No.ELR202210103091 dated 10-10-2022, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 3 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 5th respondent herein to unlock the doors of the building constructed by the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.13 cents near Srujala Water Plant situated at Sy.No.332/ 1 of Pedanindrakolanu Village, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for MPP ZPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following ORDER: Declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 10.10.2022 submitted through Spandana program and in initiating appropriate action against the 5th respondent, who has illegally acted on the letter made by the 6th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Sanding Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that when the respondent authorities tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, the present writ petition has been filed and this Court, by order dated 05.01.2023, directed the respondents not to interfere and not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except in accordance with law. He further submitted that though two years have lapsed, the respondent authorities did not choose to file their counter affidavit. 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 Panchayat Raj and Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, collectively sought time to file counter affidavit. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite a representation dated 10.10.2022, as the respondent authorities have not initiated any action against the 5th respondent, who has illegally tried to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition. This Court, accordingly, by interim order dated 05.01.2023, protected the interest of the petitioner, directing the respondents not to interfere or dispossess the petitioner from the 5 subject land. Though two years have lapsed, the respondent authorities have neither filed counter affidavit nor brought written instructions to this Court. 6. In view of the above circumstances, there is no purpose in keeping this writ petition pending inviting counter. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition by passing the following order: “Respondent authorities are directed not to interfere and not to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.332/1 near Srujaladhara Water Plant at Pedanindrakolanu Village, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District, except under due process of law.” 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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 Date: 04.11.2025 ANS 6 282 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 469/2023 Date: 04.11.2025 ANS