APHC010000262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 76/2026 Between: 1. BHIMAVARAPU VENKATA BHARATH REDDY, SS/O. NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 3-44A, MUNNANGI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER DPO, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, R B SECTION, DUGGIRALA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KOLLIPARA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH --C -3OI 6. 6. THE PANCHAYATHI SECRATORY, MUNNANGI PANCHAYATHI, KOLLIPARA MANDALAM, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.A ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 6 in not considering the representations z submitted to them as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to consider the representation dated 07-11-2025 and consequently direct them to take action against the erection of unauthorized banners, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to 2 to 6 to consider the petitioner representation dated 10-11-2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pas Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GADE NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: To declare the inaction of the respondents on the representation dated 07.11.2025 made by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Gade Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that when some third parties erected banners in the petitioner’s private property, he made a representation dated 07.11.2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 6 to take action in removing the same, however, as no action has been initiated by the respondents, filed the present writ petition. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to remove the erected banners in the petitioners land by considering his representation, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that even according to the petitioner, the alleged banners are situated in the petitioner’s own property which were erected by some third parties. Therefore, the petitioner has to take steps in removing the said banners 4 and there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to remove the same. The writ petition is frivolous and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions made by the respective parties, admittedly the alleged banners are erected in the petitioner’s private property by some third parties. When some third parties are interfering with the petitioner’s property, the petitioner can restrain them from doing so by approaching competent Civil Court. Further, when there are civil disputes between the petitioner and some third persons, the question of making a representation to the authorities to remove the banners does not arise. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to do so. When there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondents the question of filing writ petition seeking mandamus does not arise. 7. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. For 5 issuing the mandamus, it must be shown that there is a statute to enforce its performance. Further, it is also well settled principle that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and the remedy under Article 226 shall not be available except where violation is alleged. 8. As stated supra, the subject alleged banners have been erected in the petitioner’s private property that too by some third parties, as such, the petitioner has to go to competent civil Court to settle the issue. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 06th January, 2026 RKS