APHC010004572026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 468/2026 Between: 1. POLURU KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O. NARAIAH NAIDU, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RIO. DOOR.NO. 6/29, PVG PALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPET MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ( ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522 238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, AT TIRUPATI. 517501 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, TIRUPATIDISTRICT ATTIRUPATI. 517501 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFIFCER, PULLAMPET MANDAL, PULLAMPET. TIRUPATI DISTRICT 516107 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PULLAMPET MANDAL, PULLAMPET. TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 516 L 07 6. PVG PALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY,, PANCHAYAT SECRETARY PVG PALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPET MANDAL,TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 516107 2 7. POLURU JAYAMMA, W/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RIO. PVG PALLI VILLAGE,PULLAMPET MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 516107 8. POLURU JANARDHANA, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. PVG PAULI VILLAGE, PULLAMPET MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 516107 ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents more particularly the action of the respondent nos. 2 to 6 at the behest of the unofficial respondents are taking steps to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner covered in Sy.No.885 an extent of 1.23 cents in PVC Pauli Village, Pullampet Mandal, as illegal, irregular, without issuing any notice, irrational, contrary to theRla.wdedlared by this Honble Court reported in 2007 (4) ALT 550 held in Banne Gandhi Vs District Collector and others, without any authority or sa.h6tiori of law, violative of Articles 14, Article 300-A of Constitution .of India, and consequently direct the respondents 2t to 36nbtto interfere with my possession and enjoyment over my said private property 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 respondent Nos.2 to 6 not to interfere in any manner with my possession and enjoyment over my said private property covered in Sy.No.885 an extent of 1.23 cents in PVG Pauli Village, Pullampet Mandal, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. PILLIX LAW FIRM 3 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Navuluru Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 3, Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the 5th respondent, Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 6 and Sri Jeetendra, learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 2. Sri Jeetendra, learned counsel for the 7th respondent would submit that the 8th respondent is the son of the 7th respondent and is presently residing in the United States of America. 3. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the 6th respondent in interfering with an extent of Ac.1.23 cents in Sy.No.885 of PVG Palli Village, Pullampet Mandal, Tirupati District, without following due process, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.23 cents in Sy.No.885 of PVG Palli Village. 4 5. Per contra, Sri Jeetendra, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, would contend that the 7th respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.23 cents in Sy.No.885 of PVG Palli Village. 6. Whether the petitioner is in possession of the land or the 7th respondent is in possession is a serious disputed question of fact. This Court will not adjudicate such disputed questions while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Panchayat Secretary of the 6th respondent filed a counter-affidavit, contending, inter alia, that the Gram Panchayat is not interfering with the Ac.1.23 cents in Sy.No.885 and is also not interfering with the petitioner’s house property. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of all the learned counsel, directing the 6th respondent not to interfere with Ac.1.23 cents in Sy.No.885 of PVG Palli Village, Pullampet Mandal, without following due process. It is made clear that no finding is recorded regarding the possession of either the petitioner or the 7th respondent in this order, as the same is a disputed question of fact. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 25.02.2026 SNI 5 104 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 468 OF 2026 Date: 25.02.2026 SNI