APHC010566732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29351/2025 Between: 1. PENUMATSA ANJANEYA RAJU, S/O. SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN R/O. D. NO.1- 139, NEAR PANCHAYAT WATER TANK, NARASIMHAPURAM, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT AP. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, NARASIMHAPURAM VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WG 2 DISTRICT 7. ALLURI VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. SITARAMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-136, NEAR PANCHAYAT WATER TANK, NARASIMHAPURAM, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST., A.P. ...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 by declaring the action of Respondents more particularly the action of Respondent No. 5 and 6 as being arbitrary, illegal and Violative of Principles of Natural Justice as well as constitutional rights and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 and 6 to follow the due process of law in taking steps to removal of such dangerous tree, and Pass such other order or Orders as may deem fit and proper in the circurhstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.5 & 6 in removing the tall coconut tree, which is dangerously bent towards the petitioner's house and poses a serious threat to the life and limb of the petitioner, in spite of bringing it to the authorities notice 3 by way of representations dated 16.09.2019 and 03.12.2024, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for MPP,ZPP & Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating to the contents of the affidavit, submitted that there is a tall coconut treeopposite to the petitioner’s property, which is dangerously bent and the trunk of the tree was badly damaged and it is likely to fall at any timeand if the same happens, it not only damages the petitioner’s property but endangers the lives ofthe petitioner’s family members.However, despite bringing it to the notice of the respondents by way of representation, no action has been taken so far. In these circumstances,the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition and prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.He further submitted that as there is an eminent threat of cyclone in the State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Government has declared red alert, the authorities should act immediately on the petitioner’s representation. 4 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions received in ROC.No.1/2025, dated 27.10.2025, furnished by the Panchayat Secretary,submitted that there is a suit pending between the Panchayat and unofficial respondent No.7 before the competent civil Court,wherein the subject property is the suit schedule property and the said suit is at the argument stage. As such, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the coconut tree is not situated on the property belongs to unofficial respondent No.7,but is,in fact, on the Government property.As such, the suitpending before the competent civil Court will not come in the way of the authorities to remove the tree. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions made by both the counsel. 7. The limited prayersought in the present writ petition is that in spite of bringing to the notice of the authorities by way of a representation about existence of adamaged tree, no action has been initiated. This Court cannot go into the aspect of whether the tree is on government property or private property. If the said alleged tree is situated on Government property and is not in the 5 subject property, the authorities can take steps and act upon the petitioner’s representation.Even otherwise,if there is no injunction in the suit and if the said tree is causing danger to any human life or property, the respondent-Panchayat can take steps in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting the counter affidavit, as such,this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage by passing the following order: “The Gram Panchayat concerned is directed to act upon the petitioner’s representations dated 16.09.2019 and 03.12.2024 and if found the alleged tree is in dangerous situation, shall take steps in accordance with law forthwith by giving noticesto the concerned parties.” 9. 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: 28.10.2025 ANS 6 BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29351/2025 Date: 28.10.2025 ANS