APHC010273942023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14055/2023 Between: 1. KOPISETTY DURGA PRASAD, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 14 SATYANARAYAPURAM, PIDIMGOYYI, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. PIDIMGOYYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, , REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIDIMGOYYI, RAJAMA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THEEGIREDDY VENKATA RAMA RAO RAMBABU, S/O. SUBBA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 543 EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. REESU RAJU, S/O. RARRU AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. PENT HOUSE, RAMU RESIDENCY, TILAK ROAD, D.NO. 75 RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14055/2023 KOPISETTY DURGA PRASAD, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 14 SATYANARAYAPURAM, PIDIMGOYYI, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PIDIMGOYYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, , REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIDIMGOYYI, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THEEGIREDDY VENKATA RAMA RAO RAMBABU, S/O. SUBBA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 543-13/1, SHEELA NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REESU RAJU, S/O. RARRU AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. PENT HOUSE, RESIDENCY, TILAK ROAD, D.NO. 75 RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RC,J W.P.No.14055 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KOPISETTY DURGA PRASAD, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 14-125/3, SATYANARAYAPURAM, PIDIMGOYYI, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAJ PIDIMGOYYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, , REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE HENDRAVARAM RURAL THEEGIREDDY VENKATA RAMA RAO RAMBABU, S/O. SUBBA 13/1, SHEELA NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, REESU RAJU, S/O. RARRU AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. PENT HOUSE, RESIDENCY, TILAK ROAD, D.NO. 75-15-10, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RC,J W.P.No.14055 of 2023 2 6. GODDU LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE APPARAO, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. 4TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. TF-3, 8TH BLOCK, IOC COLONY, DOWLAISWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. SIMHA VENKATA LAKSHMI, C/O. SIMMA PARVATHI, R/O. FISH MARKET, BOMMURU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. REESU SATYAVATHI, W/O. RAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. PENT HOUSE, RAMU RESIDENCY, TILAK ROAD, D.NO. 75-15-10, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. CH ARUNA, , C/O. NURUKURTHI KONDAMMA, R/O. 4TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. TF-3, 8TH BLOCK, IOC COLONY, DOWLAISWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 10. NURUKURTHI SURESH, S/O. TRIMURTHULU, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. 4TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. TF-3, 8TH BLOCK, IOC COLONY, DOWLAISWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 11. NURUKURTHI KONDAMMA, W/O. TRIMURTHULU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. 4TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. TF-3, 8TH BLOCK, IOC COLONY, DOWLAISWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 12. SAMMANGI KUMARI, , C/O. REESU KOTAIAH R/O. BACK SIDE OF ROYAL ENFIELD WORK SHOP, BY THE SIDE OF SAMHITHA DEGREE COLLEGE, TADITHOTA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 13. REESU KOTAIAH, S/O. RAMU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. BACK SIDE OF ROYAL ENFIELD WORK SHOP, BY THE SIDE OF SAMHITHA DEGREE COLLEGE, TADITHOTA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI 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 topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the memo in Rc.No. 211/2023/A-2 dated 31.05.2023 issued by 2nd respandent and the notice in R.O.C No. 54/2022 dated 06.06.2023 issued by 3rd respondent and thereby resorting to demolish the structures as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction RC,J W.P.No.14055 of 2023 3 besides violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently set aside the same and to 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish structures of the petitioner's house by virtue of notice R.O.C No. 54/2023 dated 06.06.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to vacate the interim order dated. 23-06-2023 in IA No. 1 of 2023 in WP No. 14055 of 2023 dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.No.14055 of 2023 4 ORDER The writ petition is filed impugning the memo dated 31.05.2023 issued by respondent no.2 vide Rc.No.211/2023-A-2 and notice dated 06.06.2023 issued by respondent no.3 vide ROC No.54/2022. 2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram panchayat and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 3. Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that basing on some vague complaint, the District Panchayat Officer issued memo dated 31.05.2023 directing the Panchayat Secretary to take steps against the constructions being carried out by the petitioner by fixing seven (07) days time. He would further contend that basing on the said memo, the Panchayat Secretary issued notice dated 06.06.2023 directing the petitioner to stall the construction activity and attend the office and submit the building permission and title documents. He would further contend that the petitioner submitted his explanation enclosing the relevant documents by sending the same by registered post on 12.06.2023, however without passing any orders, the authorities are trying to interfere with the petitioner’s property and attempting to demolish the structures. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. RC,J W.P.No.14055 of 2023 5 4. On the other hand, Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondents, would contend that the Government allotted the subject site to the Society but the petitioner highhandedly making constructions therein without having any right and title and without obtaining building permission and hence they gave a complaint and accordingly, the authority issued notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the society claiming that the property was allotted to the society by the Government filed suit and the same ultimately went to Supreme Court and it is decided that the subject land is a patta land but not government land. Therefore, the society cannot claim the land to be the land allotted by the Government to it. 6. Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, would contend that notices were issued to the petitioner as well as unofficial respondents, and though the unofficial respondents submitted their explanation, the petitioner did not submit any explanation and the issue is pending and no orders have been passed on the said notice due to pendency of this writ petition. That the writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal. RC,J W.P.No.14055 of 2023 6 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. According to the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner did not submit any explanation, whereas the petitioner filed copy of the explanation and also postal receipt to substantiate the factum of submission of explanation. This Court cannot go into merits of the matter as to who is the rightful owner of the property and according to the petitioner the said issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the authorities concerned to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, afford him an opportunity of being heard and pass a reasoned order and accordingly take steps. The petitioner is at liberty to file all the documents including the judgments delivered in the civil suit. Till then not to take any coercive steps against the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATED 5th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026. RR