APHC010108082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5691/2025 Between: 1. ANGELA RAMBABU, S/O. CHINNA KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. RAJAMPALLI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. ANGELA SREENU, , S/O. CHINNA KOTESWARA RAO AGED 35 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. RAJAMPALLI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MGM CAPITAL GROUND FLOOR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MGM CAPITAL, GROUND FLOOR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 5. THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 6. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 9. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 10. THE TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 11. THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY CUM SECRETARY, RAJAMPALLI, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ANNAVARAM VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 12. AVULA RAMANAMMA, W/O. KOTI REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC HOUSE-WIFE, R/O. D.NO.4-1064, KOTHAREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PASALAPUDI SATYA HARITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Pasalapudi Satya Haritha, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners; Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj; Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing on 3 behalf of Sri Sudhir Mattegunta, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. The relief sought in the Writ Petition is as under: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents, more particularly Respondents Nos.9 and 10 on petitioners representation dated 27.01.2025, submitted for initiating action against unauthorized layout being carried out in an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.66/2, Annavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920 and rules framed thereunder and offends articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 to 11 to prevent the illegal and unauthorized layouts being carried out by Respondent No. 12…” 3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners herein have filed a Suit for Partition bearing O.S.No.253 of 2022, on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi, seeking 1/4th of the share in the Scheduled Properties. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Unofficial Respondent No.12 herein, who is Defendant No. 11 in the Suit, has now made an unauthorized layout in an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.66/2, Annavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District in respect of land which is a part of the schedule in the said O.S.No.253 of 2022. 4. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Unofficial Respondent No.12 is trying to alienate the said property on the basis of the layout. It is not stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition whether the Writ 4 Petitioners, having filed O.S.No.253 of 2022 for Partition, has also filed an Interlocutory Application seeking any kind of interim protection or interim relief. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the Writ Petitioners ought to have approached the Civil Court, namely the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi, in O.S.No.253 of 2022 for seeking any kind of interim protection or interim relief. Despite the fact that the Suit was filed in the year 2022, the record does not indicate whether the Civil Court has passed any interim order. Nevertheless, the Writ Petitioners ought to have approached only the Civil Court, as the Civil Court has to deal with whether there is a prima facie case in favor of the Writ Petitioners or not. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the case. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. It is indicated that the observations made in the Writ Petition do not preclude the Writ Petitioners from approaching the Civil Court. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 10.03.2025 DSV