Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9996 (AP)

HARISCHANDRA PATRA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/5918/2025 · 2025-03-26

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010112512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5918/2025 Between: 1. HARISCHANDRA PATRA, S/O. LATE CHAITANYA PATRA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-2, CHINNA STREET, BIRLANGI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT (I), ICHAPURAM SUB-DIVISION, ICHAPURAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT (I), ICHAPURAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. THE BIRLANGI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BIRLANGI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, 2 SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. DUPANA BRUNDHAVATHI, W/O.NELLADHRI REDDY, OCC. SURPANCH, BIRLANGI GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O. BIRLANGI VILLAGE ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri M. Verendranath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri C. Subodh, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Ms. K. Sowmya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPs, MPPs and Gram Panchayat appearing for Respondent No.7. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “… to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to lay the road in the land belonging to the petitioner i.e., land of an extent Ac.1.24 cents in Sy.No.146-2, Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.155-2, Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.155-4, Ac.1.892 cents in Sy.No.155-7 in total Ac.4.632 cents in Birlangi Village of Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District without paying compensation and without initiating land acquisition proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 300-A of Constriction of India and consequently direct the respondents not to lay the road in the lands belonging to the petitioner and pass such other or further order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 3. The Ms. 3. The Ms. K. Sowmya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPs, MPPs and Gram Panchayat appearing for Respondent No.7 has submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the Panchayat Secretary, Birlangi Gram Panchayat, 3 Ichapuram, Srikakulam District, dated 19.03.2025. Copy of it is also supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. The same is taken on record. 4. Relevant portion of the Written Instruction is usefully extracted hereunder: “Further I would like to submit that, Birlangi Gram Panchayat, made proposals for laying C.C roads in the village. It is also proposed to lay road from Darapu Tirupati fields to Kuramma Temple. But it is only a proposal. While proposing said work, the Panchayat body do not have exact idea about the extent of fields, and land availability for formation of C.C. Road. While executing the work and upon keen observation, said proposal has been dropped, and at present there is no such acceleration of any type of work regarding the formation of C.C Road as proposed.” 5. The above extract would indicate that there was a proposal for laying of road, but the same has been dropped for the time being. 6. Having regard to the above extract, this Court is of the opinion that no further consideration is necessary in this matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Order as to Costs. 7.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 26.03.2025 JKS 4 48 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 5918 OF 2025 26.03.2025 JKS