APHC010085372026 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: 4869/2026 Between: 1. BOBBA VENKATA LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O SUBRAMANYA KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O DOOR NO. 2-215, 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. 522238 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, BAPULAPADUMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 521105 2 ...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 action of respondent No.4 in issuing order in ROC No. 01/2025 dated 20-01-2026, 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. 2-01 cents and Ac. 1-50 cents in two different bits situated in R.S.No. 95-2 of Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, in the interest of justice and 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 to DIRECT the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 2-01 cents and Ac. 2-01 cents and Ac. 1-50 cents in two different bits situated in R.S.No. 95-2 of Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District by suspending the order in ROC No. 01/2025 dated 20-01-2026 of 4th respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA The Court made the following: 3 :: 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 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 20.01.2026 (Ex.P1), the petitioner filed the above writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent issued two show cause notices dated 11.07.2025 (Ex.P2) and 28.08.2025 (Ex.P3). The petitioner submitted an explanation on 02.09.2025 (Ex.P4). However, without considering the said explanation, the proceedings impugned dated 20.01.2026 (Ex.P1) were issued. 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. The point for consideration is: Whether the notice dated 20.01.2026 (Ex.P1) impugned in the writ petition legally sustainable? 6. 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.” 7. The 4th respondent, before the order in the writ petition 15656 of 2025, issued two show cause notices. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.09.2025 (Ex.P4). In the proceedings impugned, it was noted regarding the issuance of two show cause notices and the order in W.P.No.15656 of 2025 as the second and third references. The explanation dated 02.09.2025 (Ex.P4) 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 5 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 20.01.2026 (Ex.P1) without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.09.2025 (Ex.P4). 9. In fact, the proceedings impugned dated 20.01.2026 (Ex.P1) are contemptuous. However, this Court refrains from initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 10. Since the 4th respondent failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.09.2025 (Ex.P4), the proceedings vide ROC.No.01/2025 dated 20.01.2026 (Ex.P1) are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside. The Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.09.2025 (Ex.P4) by providing an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. With the above observations, 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 6 78 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4869 OF 2026 Date: 19.02.2026 SNI