APHC010116192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7578/2026 Between: 1. INAGALURI MALYADRI, S/O YESOBU, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O 10TH WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI. 110001. 2. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, G 5 AND 6, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI- 110075. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER R AND B, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND CENTRAL ROAD FUND ANDHRA PRADESH, AT VIJAYAWADA - 520013 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, BAPATLA DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.- 521001. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT BAPATLA- 522101 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAPATLA DIVISION, BAPATLA. 522101 7. THE TAHSILDAR, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA. 522101 2 8. THE MUNICIPALITY, BAPATLA, REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA. 522101 9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DEPARTMENT, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 522101 10. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT BAPATLA. 522101 ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in restraining the political groups from establishing unauthorized statues in the No-Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla, without considering the Petitioners representation dated 14.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner and contrary to guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 08.04.2003, and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013 and in violation of Court Orders in WP.No. 15228 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondents to not permit to establish unauthorized statues in the No- Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla 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 to restrain any person or group, including the residents from taking steps to install any statue at the Market Yard Junction, Bapatla and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHARGAV THIMMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR REVENUE 3 4. The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7578/2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “ to issue a Writ, Order particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in restraining the political groups from establishing unauthorized statues in the No-Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla, without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 14.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner and contrary to guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 08.04.2003, and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.02.2013 and in violation of Court orders in WP.No.15228 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondents to not permit to establish unauthorized statues in the No- Construction Zone near Market Yard Junction, Bapatla and to pass such other order or orders as deem fit in the circumstance of the case….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint of the petitioner before this Court is that the official respondent Nos.4 to 10 herein are taking steps for erection of statute without there being any permission from the competent authority, contrary to the Guidelines and Rules as envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 18.02.2013. He further submits that without there being any permission, no statute can be erected at the road 5 margins. He further submits that in the instant case, the respondents are trying to erect statute between the two roads in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land vested with the Government. Therefore, the respondents shall follow due process for erection any statute as per G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 18.02.2013. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that as admitted by the petitioner the extent of land at alleged road margin is more than Ac.1.50 cents, as such, such an extent of land besides road cannot be a road margin and it would be the Government poramboke or vacant land vested with the 1st respondent. In view of the said extent of land, even though it is situated between the roads, it cannot be canvassed as a road margin, ut most it can be described as a Government poramboke land or vacant land. Moreover, G.O.Ms.No.18 is not applicable, since it is not a road margin. 5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is observed that according to the petitioner the subject land where the proposed statute is to be erected is in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents. As contended by the learned Government Pleader, the said extent of the land is Ac.1.50 cents and in that event, it cannot be said as road margin. However, as canvassed by the petitioner no statute can be erected without there being any proper permission from the competent authority. But in the instant case, the petitioner is not clear about which statute is going to be installed or who are laying such statute and when it is installing except stating that the same is proposed at road margin, nothing was elicited by him. As such it appears to be the apprehension of the 6 petitioner. However, law mandates that for erection of statute by the official respondents or unofficial respondents, there must be a permission from the competent authority. 6. In view of the reasons as stated above, it is appropriate for this court, without going into merits of the case to dispose of the writ petition. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition directing the respondents, if they intended to erect any statute at the subject place, they should secure required permission from the competent authority and without there being such permission, the respondents cannot be permitted to erect any statute. If the extent of the land is Ac.1.50 cents and it is admitted as a Government land, the guidelines as envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.18 are not at all applicable. 7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.03.2026 TPS 7 36 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7578/2026 Date:18.03.2026 TPS