APHC010088782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4862/2026 Between: 1. KOLUKULURI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.20-4, VADAYAR STREET, MOGALTUR VILLAGE, MOGALTUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PIN 534281 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. – 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. – 534201 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. – 534201 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NARASAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. – 534275 5. THE TAHSILDAR, , MOGALTUR MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. – 534281 p. 2 SRS,J 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, (MPDO) MOGALTUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. – 534281 7. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, (THE EXTENSION OFFICER, PR AND RD) MOGALTUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. – 534281 8. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT MOGALTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOGALTUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. – 534281 ...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, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 6 to 8 in starting the activity of demolition of the Petitioners building consisting of Ground Floor plus 4 Floors bearing Door No.20-67/8, Assessment No. 214701004422 (Old Assessment No.4826) in R.S.No.761/2, 761/3 to an extent of 533 Square Yards situated at Mogaltur Village, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District without giving any notice and without following due process of law as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and contrary to the Provisions of the AP Panchayat Raj Act and A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules 2002 and Principles of Natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner from his building Honourable Court may deem fit and proper 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner’s building consisting of Ground Floor + 4 Floors bearing Door No.20-67/8, Assessment No. 214701004422 (Old Assessment p. 3 SRS,J No.4826) in R.S.No.761/2, 761/3 to an extent of 533 Square Yards situated at Mogaltur Village, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District in any manner including the demolition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri N. Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1, 3 and 4, and Ms. P. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 and 5, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents, 6, 7 and 8. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondents in attempting to demolish the building bearing D.No.20-67/8, assessment No.214701004422 (old assessment No.4826), constructed in land admeasuring 533 square yards, situated in R.S.No.761/2 and 761/3, Mogaltur Village, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner constructed the building after obtaining permission from the competent authority. The District Town and Country Planning Officer, considering the p. 4 SRS,J BPS application made by the petitioner, regularised the deviations vide the proceedings No.BPS2019/BHI/20/10707 dated 24.08.2020. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has been paying taxes. 4. Be that as it may, respondents 6 to 8 attempted to demolish the building without issuing any notice. 5. The writ petition was listed on 23.02.2026, and this Court, to resolve the dispute, directed the learned Tahsildar, respondent No.5, to inspect the road in front of the building in question and submit a report. In pursuance of the said order, Tahsildar, along with Village Surveyor, Revenue Staff and Village Functionaries, inspected in the presence of the petitioner and Panchayat Secretary-respondent No.8 and submitted the report. In the report, it was mentioned that the petitioner’s building was measured physically on the ground, and the measurements were verified on the spot, which correlated with the revenue records, including RSR and webland adangal. It was mentioned that some concrete road exists in front of the petitioner’s building bearing D.No.20-67/8, with a width of three meters, and no 12 meters wide road is physically existing in front of the subject building, on the date of inspection. 6. Thus, as seen from the report of the learned Tahsildar, the petitioner constructed a structure in the land admeasuring 533 square yards in R.S.No.761/2 and 761/3. The report would also indicate that the building was physically measured on the ground and the measurements were verified on the spot, which correlates with the revenue records, including RSR and webland adangal. There is no discrepancy regarding the petitioner’s possession of the subject building. The discrepancy is regarding the width of the road. p. 5 SRS,J 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side directing respondents 6 to 8 not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property, without following due process. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 02.03.2026 IKN