APHC010006062026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 648/2026 Between: 1. S. PAYANI ALIAS PALANI,, S/O. M. SWAMY NANDHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC UPA-SARPANCH, R/O. D.NO.1-78-B, NARASIMHAPURAM VILLAGE ALIAS A.KHANDRIGA, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517419. 2. KOTTURU PAYANI,, S/O. GANESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.1-31/B, NARASIMHAPURAM VILLAGE ALIAS A.KHANDRIGA, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517419. 3. M.S.MANI,, S/O. M. SARAVANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.1-12, NARASIMHAPURAM VILLAGE @ A.KHANDRIGA, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT -517419. 4. K. ARMUGAM,, S/O. GOVINDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION RIO. D.NO.1-6, NARASIMHAPURAM VILLAGE @ A.KHANDRIGA, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT -517419. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT -517419. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR- 17419. 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517419. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PRAJAPARISHAD, PALASAMUDRAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517419. 6. THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NARASIMHAPURAM ALIAS A.KHANDRIGA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT- 517419, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. ...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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to bifurcate the existing Narasimhapuram Gram Panchayat @ A.Khandriga into two Gram Panchayats namely TVNR Puram and Narasimhapuram, despite the fact that all the villages/hamlets proposed to be separated are situated within the distance prescribed under Rule 6 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007, and without satisfying the mandatory statutory conditions though petitioners made representations dated 23.12.2025 and 29.12.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the A.P. Gram Panchayat (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007 and consequently direct the respondents to forebear proposal of bifurcation of above Gram Panchayat by considering the representations dated 23.12.2025 and 29.12.2025 made by the petitioner 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 pleased to direct the respondents to stay all further proceedings in proposing to bifurcate. the Gram Panchayat namely "Narasimhapuram Gram Panchayat @ A.Khandriga" by considering the representations dated 23.12.2025 and 29.12.2025 made by the petitioners Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: To declare the action of the respondents in Contemplating to bifurcate the existing Narasimhapuram Gram Panchayat @ A.Khandriga into two Gram Panchayats, namely TVNR Puram and Narasimhapuram, despite the fact that the villagers/hamlets proposed to be separated are situated within the distance prescribed under Rule 6 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007, and without satisfying the mandatory statutory conditions, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 3. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the method and manner in which the respondents are contemplating to bifurcate the Gram Panchayat is contrary to law. Representations were made to the authorities concerned on 23.12.2025 and 29.12.2025. Without passing orders on the said representations, they are proposing/contemplating to bifurcate the existing Gram Panchayat into two Gram Panchayats. The 1st petitioner is the Upa-Sarpanch and the Gram Sabha resolution has been passed behind his back. The Gram Sabha was also conducted behind the back of the 1st petitioner. In the said circumstances, he prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. Ms. Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the writ petition has been filed in a premature manner, wherein the petitioner is coming in the way of the bifurcation process while it is at proposal stage, and therefore the writ petition is to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. The main ground that has been raised and urged is that the 5th respondent, behind the petitioners’ back, conducted Gram Sabha and managed to pass a resolution. A representation was made to the 5th respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer requesting not to bifurcate Gram Panchayat. Further, another representation was also made to the 2nd respondent-Collector dated 29.12.2025. Without considering those representations, they are contemplating to bifurcate the subject Gram Panchayat into two Gram Panchayats. In the said circumstances, if the Gram Panchayat is bifurcated, it would affect the petitioners’ village as well as other villagers. Even according to the petitioners, the proposal for bifurcation of the subject Gram Panchayat is in the pipeline. Insofar as conducting Gram Sabha is concerned, no individual notices are required to be issued. 7. In this regard, Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.162, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts. I), dated 04.04.1997 is relevant and reads as follows:- 4.(1):- No meeting shall be held unless notice of the place where and of the day and time when, the meeting is to be held and of the business to be transacted there at has been given at least two clear days before the day of the meeting. 4.(2):-The notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be given- (i)By beat of drum in the village; (ii) By affixing notice at three conspicuous places in the village; and (iii) By affixing notice on the notice board of the gram panchayat office. 8. Nowhere in the pleadings, the petitioners, have stated that the notice required under Rule 4 was not issued. In the said circumstances, the petitioners cannot contend that Gram Sabha was conducted behind their back. Further, it was not specifically pleaded as to how the bifurcation would affect the rights of the petitioners, except stating that the mandatory procedure prescribed was not followed. Even otherwise, there is no infringement of petitioners’ legal right found and it is too premature to question at this stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage, as the petition is devoid of merits. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the authorities, before taking bifurcation proceedings into consideration, shall look into whether the Gram Sabha has been conducted in terms of Rules or not. The petitioners are liberty to approach appropriate authorities in accordance with law at the appropriate time. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 08th January, 2026 JLV 303 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 648/2026 Date: 08th January, 2026 JLV