APHC010266992023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13735/2023 Between: 1. THIRUPATHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. CHAKRAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATALA. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 6. THE CHAKRAYAPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHAKRAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 7. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, CHAKRAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. Page 2 of 4 8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADDANKI POLICE STATION, ADDANKI, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 9. BOLLA BRAMHAIAH, S/O. YANADI, AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O. CHAKRAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 10. GOGULAMUDI NAGARJUNA, S/O. SINGAIAH, AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O. CHAKRAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...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 Orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 6 to 8 in trying to lay the road in the site belong to the petitioner and his cousin namely Thirupathi Venkatarao situated in Sy.No.126 of Chakrayapalem Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District, without issuing any notice, without any power or authority, being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to lay any road in the site belong to the petitioner and his cousin namely Thirupathi Venkatarao situated in Sy.No.126 of Chakrayapalem Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 not to lay the road in the site belong to the petitioner and his cousin namely Thirupathi Venkatarao situated in Sy.No.126 of Chakrayapalem Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA p. 3 3. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 4. GP FOR REVENUE 5. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 & 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2, 4 & 7 and Sri Hrithik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudheer, learned standing counsel for respondents 5 & 6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent assigned an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land in S.No.126 of Chakrayapalem village, Addanki Mandal, to the petitioner, and he constructed RCC in the part of the property and has been residing therein. Be that as it may, respondents 6 to 8, without issuing any notice, are attempting to lay a road on the petitioner's site. He would also submit that the unofficial respondents, 9 and 10, influenced the official respondents. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. The authorities have not disputed the assignment of land in favour of the petitioner. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner constructed two portioned house, in Ac.0.04½ cents. The 5th respondent issued notices dated 28.04.2022 and 13.09.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation regarding the encroachments. The petitioner neither submitted an explanation nor removed the encroachments. The petitioner encroached upon the public road and placing hayrick, thereby causing obstruction to the ingress and egress of the general public to reach Rythu Bharosa Kendram. p. 4 4. A separate counter affidavit was filed by the 4th respondent asserting assignment of Ac.0.03 cents of land to the petitioner. 5. The writ petition was initially listed on 14.06.2023, and no interim order was granted. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned standing counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 submitted the latest instructions of the Panchayat Secretary, wherein it was stated that the petitioner, by encroaching upon the public road, laid stones. Later, the petitioner himself removed the stones, and there is no obstacle for ingress and egress to the public road. The Gram Panchayat has not laid any road in the petitioner’s land. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also endorses the same. 7. In view of the same, since the 6th respondent is not interfering with the petitioner’s possession as alleged, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner approached this Court with an apprehension. In fact, as seen from the instructions, the petitioner himself removed the stones, as there was an obstacle for ingress and egress to the general public to use the road. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned property, without following due process of law. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD