APHC010586192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30166/2025 Between: 1. GANDHAM VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O.VENKATA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.H.NO. 2 MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 1. GOVERNMENT OFANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BV ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 3. EXTENSION OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, PERAVALI MANDAL, PERAVALI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. KANURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRE PERAVALI MANDAL PERAVALI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 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 a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring orders of the 4 2025 seeking to demolish here building in an extent of 74 Sq.yds in R.S.No. 234situate in Kanuru village, Peravali IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30166/2025 GANDHAM VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O.VENKATA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.H.NO. 2-19, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND GOVERNMENT OFANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BV ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT,VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EXTENSION OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, PERAVALI MANDAL, PERAVALI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT KANURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETAIY, KANURU, PERAVALI MANDAL PERAVALI, EAST 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 Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring orders of the 4th respondent in Roc.No. 4/2025 dt.13 2025 seeking to demolish here building in an extent of 74 Sq.yds in R.S.No. 234situate in Kanuru village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District or any IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI GANDHAM VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O.VENKATA KRISHNA, AGED 19, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI ...PETITIONER GOVERNMENT OFANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BV ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT,VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, EAST GODAVARI EXTENSION OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, PERAVALI MANDAL, TAIY, KANURU, PERAVALI MANDAL PERAVALI, EAST 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 Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or respondent in Roc.No. 4/2025 dt.13-10- 2025 seeking to demolish here building in an extent of 74 Sq.yds in R.S.No. Mandal, West Godavari District or any 2 portion thereof without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary etc., and grant 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 dispense with filing of English Translated Copies of Exs.P2 to 5 and 10 in the above WP for the present and grant IA NO: 2 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 the respondents not to demolish the building of Petitioner in an extent of 74 Sq.yds in R.S.No.234 situate in Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District or any portion thereof pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 The Court made the following order: Questioning the order of respondent No.4 vide ROC No.4/2025, dated 13.10.2025 whereby the petitioner has been directed to demolish her building admeasuring 74 sq yards in R.S.No.234 situated in Kanuru village, Peravali Mandal, East Godavari District, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Y.Koteswararao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent No.4. 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 subject property. The petitioner had applied for building permission to respondent No.4. Since respondent No.4 did not pass any orders on the said application within the statutory period, the permission is deemed to have been granted and accordingly the petitioner commenced and completed the construction of building. During the course of construction, neither respondent No.4 nor any of theneighbours, raised any objection or lodged any complaint. He further submits that the petitioner also made an application under Spandana on 24.07.2020 bringing her grievance to the notice of the authorities.Respondent No.4, through letter dated 08.09.2020, informed the petitioner that her site would be measured by the Sachivalayam Surveyor on 10.09.2020 at 11:00 A.M., and also directed the interested 4 individuals to attend the said enquiryin connection with the alleged existence of a joint lane. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the enquiry and produced the necessary documents. He further submits that the neighbourssituated on the northern side of the petitioner’s property raised a dispute claiming that there exists a joint pathway passing through the petitioner’s site. In view of the above dispute, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.97/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku, seeking appropriate relief and the same is pending. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a Notice dated 15.07.2024, calling upon the petitioner to submit hertitle deeds, to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 12.08.2024 and requestednot to take coercive steps pending the civil suit. Despite that, the respondent No.4 again issued a further notice dated 17.09.2024, and later passed the impugned demolition order dated 13.10.2025.Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submits that the petitioner failed to furnish the details and old documents relating to the subject property and was unable to give clarification regarding the adjacent road to the subject property, which is being used by other villagers. He further submits thatthe Petitioner’s application for building plan approval was rejected on the ground of non-submission of relevant and sufficient documentation pertaining to the ownership and access of the subject property. He further submits that the petitioner has an effective alternative 5 remedy of filing an appeal before the Gram Panchayat against the order of rejection provided underSection 128 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. According to the petitioner, since no orders have been passed on her application submitted for building permission, invoking deeming provision, she proceeded with the construction. As per the respondent authorities building permission was rejected. Once building permission was rejected by the grampanchayat, section 128 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, she has to file appeal before the concerned Gram Panchayat. Without exhausting alternative remedy, writ under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that where an efficacious alternative remedy is available under Section 128 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, interferenceunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. In the present case, the Petitioner has placed on record that the civil dispute regarding the alleged pathway is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, and yet the respondent No.4 has proceeded to issue the demolition notice without following the due process of law. Hence, this Court 6 deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with the consent of both the parties at the admission stage itself with the following directions: The petitioner, if desires, can prefer an appeal before the Gram Panchayat in accordance with Section 128 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 within a period of two (2) weeks from today and the Gram Panchayat shall consider the appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and shall pass a reasoned order at the earliest. Till such exercise is completed, both parties shall maintain status quo as on today with respect to the subject property. 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 04.11.2025 MP 7 168 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.30166 OF 2025 04.11.2025 8 MP