APHC010094332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5162/2026 Between: 1. SMT. GUVVALA SAMPOORNA, W / O NAGARAJ A, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF CHEENEVANDLAPALLI H/O RAYAVARAM VILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATH AP 522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT MADANAPALLI.517325 3. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. AP 516130 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AP 516130 5. THE RAYAVARAM GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, _ T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. AP 516129 6. THE TAHSILDAR, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 2 DISTRICT. AP 516130 7. SRI VADISALA SUBBARAMAIAH, S/O SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC RTC DRIVER, RESIDENT OF KADAPA TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.516001 ...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 Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 6 in trying to demolish the residential house made by the petitioner in the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.831, situated in Cheenevandlapalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District which is subject matter of Possession Certificate bearing Ref.No.325/ 1415, dated 15- 02-2012 without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of Article 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the residential house 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 3 to 6 not to demolish the residential house made by the petitioner in the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.831, situated in Cheenevandlapalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ petition befoge this Honourable court, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3. SHAIK ALTAF The Court made the following: 3 :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri Nithin, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, Ms Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the 6th respondent and Sri Shaik Altaf, learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents 3 to 6 in trying to demolish the residential house constructed by the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.831, Cheenevandlapalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District, without issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 6th respondent issued a possession certificate vide Ref No.325/1415 dated 15.02.2012 (Ex.P1) to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed a house and has been residing therein. The respondents 3 to 5, without issuing any notice, are trying to demolish the structure. 4. An interim order was granted on 20.02.2026, directing the respondents 3 to 5 not to demolish the house in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.831 of Cheenevandlapalli, H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya 4 District, without following due process. This Court also directed the petitioner not to carry out any constructions. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri Nithin, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, submitted the written instructions of the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent. A perusal of the written instructions would indicate that the adjacent land owner of the petitioner made a complaint alleging that the petitioner encroached upon the subject land. A notice dated 19.07.2025, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit an explanation. In response, the petitioner submitted Ex.P1 patta. However, upon verification with the office of the Tahsildar, it was confirmed that no such patta is found in the revenue records. Later, the 7th respondent filed W.P.No.27532 of 2025, to declare the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in proceedings further, in pursuance of the notice vide Ref.No.06/2025 dated 19.07.2025. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents 2 and 3 therein to take further action in terms of Sections 121 and 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Act, 1994. In compliance with the said order, a survey was conducted through the Mandal Surveyor by issuing a notice dated 24.11.2025 vide Rc.No.11/2025 to the petitioner. The Mandal Surveyor submitted the report to the Tahsildar, which was forwarded to the Gram Panchayat on 09.01.2026. The survey report confirmed that the petitioner is constructing the building on Gramakantam land. The Gram Panchayat will issue an appropriate notice to the petitioner 5 and follow due process for removal of the encroachment, if any, in accordance with law. 6. Sri Shaik Altaf, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, would contend that the petitioner constructed the house in the land belonging to the 7th respondent in Sy.No.829/3. 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, including the instructions, an RCC building exists. However, there is a dispute regarding the survey number. 8. It is a settled position of law that disputed questions of law normally shall not be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The view of the court is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court. 9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petitions in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and, also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should 1 (2010) 8 SCC 329 6 not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.” 10. The instructions of the 5th respondent are clear regarding the survey and issuing notice to the petitioner. The instructions of the 5th respondent further make it clear that the authority will follow due process. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, while this Court is not recording any finding regarding the ownership of the land, whether it belongs to the petitioner or the 7th respondent, since the survey was conducted by the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent shall follow due process in case any construction is made by encroaching upon the public place. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of all the learned counsel. It is not out of place to mention here that the 6th respondent is at liberty to initiate necessary action vis-à-vis Ex.P1. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 27.02.2026 SNI 7 355 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5162 OF 2026 Date: 27.02.2026 SNI