APHC010085332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4874/2026 Between: 1. GOTTIPATI PURNA PRASAD, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O DOOR NO. 1-54, BILLANAPALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT MACHILIPATNAM.521002 3. THE TAHSILDHAR, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.521105 4. BILLANAPALLI GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BILLANAPALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.521105 5. K VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O BASAVASANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 2-224, BILLANAPALLAI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 521105 ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents more particularly action of respondent No.4 in issuing order in ROC No. 01/2025 dated -01- 2026, served to the petitioner on 06-02-2026 directing to vacate the encroachments within seven days without considering the explanation submitted by petitioner and without conducting enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1-41 cents in R.S.No.78-1 of illanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, in the interest of justice 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 2 to 4 not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1-41 cents in R.S.No.78-1 of Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District by suspending the order in ROC No. 01/2025 dated ..-01-2026 of 4th respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the 1st respondent, Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2 and 3, Sri 3 Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri Gudiseva Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent vide ROC.No.01/2025 dated ...01.2026 (Ex.P1), the petitioner filed the above writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar assigned the land of an extent of Ac.1.41 cents in Rs.No.78/1 of Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District to Kondapavuluri Venkateswara Rao. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land and his name was updated in the Record of Rights. The Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 11.07.2025 (Ex.P2). The petitioner submitted an explanation on 30.08.2025 (Ex.P3). However, without considering the said explanation, the proceedings impugned dated ....01.2026 (Ex.P1) were issued. The petitioner filed pattadar pass book as Ex.P5 and other revenue records as Ex.P6. 4. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri Gudiseva Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, supported the proceedings issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent. 4 5. Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted written instructions of the Tahsildar – 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated as follows: “1. It is to submit that, as per the Fair Land Register (FLR), RS.NO.78- 1 (LP.No.572) to an extent of Ac.7.36 cents of Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal is classified as Government Poramboke and recorded as “Kunts” in the remark’s column. 2. Upon thorough verification of the relevant revenue records – including the Fair Land Register (FLR), Field Measurement Book (FMB), and the Assignment Register – it is categorically asserted that no assignment was ever granted in R.S.No.78-1 of Billanapalli Village.” 6. Thus, as seen from the material available, the 5th respondent earlier filed W.P.No.15656 of 2025 complaining of the encroachments made by the villagers in the tanks situated in Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. The said writ petition was disposed of on 05.11.2025, with the following direction: “The Gram Panchayat concerned shall take steps for removal of encroachments made in the water tanks situated in Sy.No.58, 295-2 & 110-1 in accordance with law by issuing show cause notices to all the concerned parties inviting explanation by giving reasonable time and to pass a reasoned order after providing an opportunity of being heard and communicate the same to all the parties concerned in accordance with law within three (03) months.” 5 7. The 4th respondent had issued a show cause notice prior to the order passed in W.P.No.15656 of 2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.08.2025 (Ex.P3). In the proceedings impugned, it was noted regarding the issuance of a show cause notice and the order in W.P.No.15656 of 2025 as the second and third references. The explanation dated 30.08.2025 (Ex.P3) submitted by the petitioner was neither referred to nor considered. 8. Having received the explanation from the petitioner, the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent should have considered the explanation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per the directions in W.P.No.15656 of 2025. However, the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent, in sheer ignorance of the order in W.P.No.15656 of 2025, passed the proceedings impugned dated ...01.2026 (Ex.P1) without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.08.2025 (Ex.P3). 9. In fact, the proceedings impugned dated ...01.2026 (Ex.P1) are contemptuous. However, this Court refrains from initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Since the 4th respondent failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.08.2025 (Ex.P3), the proceedings vide ROC.No.01/2025 dated ...01.2026 (Ex.P1) are hereby set aside. The Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.08.2025 (Ex.P3) by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6 This Court also acknowledges the presence of the Panchayat Secretary in the Court when this order is dictated. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 19.02.2026 SNI 7 75 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4874 OF 2026 Date: 19.02.2026 SNI