APHC010665122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34444/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK RIZWANA,, W/O SAYED IMRAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.1-24, DIGUVA PETA, RAMASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, RAMASAMUDRAMMANDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. 2. S. ROSHAN BASHA,, S/O SAYED BASHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O D.NO.1-24, DIGUVA PETA, RAMASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, RAMASAMUDRAMMANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VALAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. THE MANDAL PRAJA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAMASAMUDRAMMANDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. 4. THE VULUPADU PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VULAPADU VILLAGE, 2 RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. 5. A KARUNAKAR RAJU, S/O A. VENKATA RAMANA RAJU, D.NO.4-36, DINNIPALLI VILLAGE, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. G SIVA, S/O G. GEVANNA, R/O VULAPADU VILLAGE, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL ANNAMAYYA 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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction of the respondents not considering the petitioners representation dated 24.11.2025 for not stopping illegal construction made by the 6th respondent in Sy.No.250/1 of Vulapadu Revenue Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District without obtaining Panchayat Approval is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principal of Natural Justice and Violation of Article 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and this Honble Court to direct the respondent Nos. 2to 4 to stop the illegal construction made by the 6th respondent in the above said Sy.no.250/1 of Vulapadu Revenue Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District and pass 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 pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to considering the representation of the petitioners dated 24*'' November, 2025 ,and thereby further direct to take an action in accordance with law to prevent the illegal construction in Sy.no.250/1 of Vulapadu Revenue Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District made by the 6*" respondent without leaving setbacks for the purpose of ongoing construction in the above Sy.No.251, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners herein to amend the main prayer ‘inaction’ instead of ‘action’ of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not considering the petitioners representation dated 24.11.2025’ in the prayer portion of the writ petition as well as in the writ affidavit in WP.No.34444 of 2025, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: Non consideration of the petitioners’ representation dated 24.11.2025, requesting the authorities to stop the illegal construction being carried out by the 6th respondent on the land situated in Sy.No.250/1 of Vulapadu Revenue Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District, without obtaining any permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P.V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed. The 6th respondent, without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, is making some construction on the petitioners’ land and the said issue has been brought to notice of the authorities through a representation dated 24.11.2025, however, no action has been initiated. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the petitioners and take steps in accordance with law. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that it is a civil dispute between the parties as such, the petitioners have to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance but cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that when the said issue was brought to the notice of the Gram Panchayat, a notice was issued to the 6th respondent and would take appropriate steps in 5 accordance with law. As such, the writ petition is merits less and deserves dismissal. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. The petitioners claim to be the owner of the subject land under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.2024. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the unofficial respondents are carrying out constructions on their land without obtaining building permission from the concerned authority. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that it is a civil dispute between the parties and they have to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance. However, as the construction being carried out without building permission, the Gram Panchayat has already issued notice and it was contended that appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law in due course. 7. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case and decided whether the petitioner is rightful owner or not. If at all the petitioners claim that any part of the land owned by them was encroached 6 upon, they have to approach the competent civil Court. Insofar as the allegation against the unofficial respondents that they are proceeding with the construction without approved building plan is concerned since a statutory duty is cast upon the Panchayat by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.02.2002, the Gram Panchayat shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law by giving proper show cause notices to the concerned parties, inviting explanation and to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 29.12.2025 ANS 7 195 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34444/2025 Date: 29.12.2025 ANS