APHC010048542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2783/2026 Between: 1. V RAJESH, S/O. MUNIKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-76, PATHAVURU, THOTTAMBEDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. V. NAGAMANI,, W/O V. RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-76, PATHAVURU, THOTTAMBEDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THOTTAMBEDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THOTTAMBEDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent no.2 in trying to dispossess and demolish the property i.e., shop by name and style NAVYA HOTEL which belongs to Petitioner no.1 having ACC Shed in Sy. No. 107 of Thottambedu Revenue Village of Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District in an extent of 43' X 20' Sq. feet and the property i.e., shop by name and style NAVYA HOTEL AND CAFE which belongs to Petitioner no.2 having ACC Shed in Sy. No. 107 of Thottambedu Revenue Village of Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District in an extent of 43' X 20' Sq. feet which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 300- A of constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondent no.2 not to 2 interfere with the above-mentioned properties of the petitioners and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 not to interfere with the property i.e., shop by name and style NAVYA HOTEL which belongs to Petitioner no.1 having ACC Shed in Sy. No. 107 of Pathuru, H/o. Thottambedu Revenue Village of Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District in an extent of 43' X 20' Sq. feet and the property i.e., shop by name and style NAVYA HOTEL AND CAFE which belongs to Petitioner no.2 having ACC Shed in Sy. No. 107 of Pathuru, H/o.Thottambedu Revenue Village of Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District in an extent of 43' X 20' Sq. feet, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y V S S DHARANEESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Heard, Sri Y.V.S.S. Dharaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Panuku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners formally asserts that this is the second round of litigation. The 2nd respondent is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in the respective properties i.e., the shop under the name and style of ‘NAVYA HOTEL’ which belongs to the 1st petitioner having ACC shed in Sy.No.107 of Pathuru, hamlet of Thottambedu Revenue Village of Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District in an extent of 43’ X 20’ Sq. feet and the property i.e., the shop under the name and style of ‘NAVYA HOTEL AND CAFE’, which belongs to the 2nd petitioner having ACC shed in Sy.No.107 of Pathuru hamlet of Thottambedu Revenue Village of Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District in an extent of 43’ X 20’ Sq. feet. 3. To substantiate his contention that this is the 2nd round of litigation, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the affidavit, wherein, it is categorically averred that earlier he approached this Court, seeking Mandamus by filing W.P.No.14007 of 2024, which happens to be disposed of on 04.07.2024 by recording the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel therein that they are not interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession. Again, on 28.01.2026, he asserts that the 2nd respondent suddenly approached and threatened to 4 demolish the existing structures on the ground that the earlier Writ Petition was disposed of and there is no specific direction. Be that as it is, the 2nd respondent again places on record the written instructions dated 31.01.2026 that they will follow the due process of law, if any such intervention or dispossession of the property of the petitioners takes place. 4. Upon recording the said written instructions, which are on record, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession over the subject property, except following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J 31.01.2026 SCH 5 115 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA W.P.No.2783 of 2026 Date: 31.01.2026 SCH