APHC010584792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30672/2025 Between: 1. VAKALAPUDI BULLI PRASAD, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.2-56, PANCHAYATI OFFICE, NADUPALLI VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOVVURU REVENUE DIVISION, KOVVURU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PERAVALI MANDAL, PERAVALI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, NIDADAVOLU SECTION, NIDADAVOLU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. THE KANURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. YATHAM KRISHNAVENI, W/O. ATCHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. FEMALE, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 9. SADA SATYAVATI, W/O. RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. FEMALE, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 10. SADA SUBBA RAO, S/O. RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, MALE, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 11. SADA SURYA RAO, S/O. RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MALE, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 12. SADA MUNEESWARA RAO, S/O. RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MALE, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 13. KOMMISETTY KRISHNAVENI, W/O. RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. FEMALE, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 14. PADALA KONDAMMA, W/O. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. FEMALE, KANURU VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3 ...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 a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the official respondents in not removing the encroachments on the road margin in front of the petitioners landed property in an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in R.S.No.32/1 of Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, East Godavari District and around the Kondalamma Temple in spite of specific directions in Civil Court proceedings i.e., O.S.No.248 of 1993, A.S.No.59 of 2007, S.A.No.105 of 2013 and notices under Sections 6 and 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules framed there under and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents to remove the encroachments in front of my landed property and also around the Kondalamma Temple forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondent Nos.2 to 7 to take steps for removal of the encroachments in front of petitioner’s landed property in an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in R.S.No.32/1 of Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, East Godavari District by duly submitting status report regarding the steps taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 5 for removal of the encroachments pending disposal of the main writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO 4 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 3. P RAJESH BABU 4. GP FOR REVENUE 5. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following order: Challenging the action of the respondents in not removing the encroachments on the road margin in front of the petitioner’s property to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in R.S.No.32/1 of Kanuru Village, Peravali Mandal, East Godavari District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that despite bringing to the notice of the authorities concerned about the encroachments on 5 the road margin in front of the petitioner’s property, no action has been initiated. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take steps in accordance with law. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, submitted that the petitioner has already approached the competent civil Court and obtained a decree in his favour, however, the petitioner did not choose to take steps to execute the same. Instead of filing the execution petition, filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to remove the encroachments. He further submitted that there are no encroachments on the road as alleged by the petitioner. In view of the same, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that there are no encroachments as alleged by the petitioner, however, there is a suit pending against the subject property, 6 wherein no injunction has been granted by the competent civil Court. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are not taking any steps to remove the encroachments in accordance with law. As per the learned Standing Counsel that there are no encroachments as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. This Court is not inclined probe into the matter to see whether there are encroachments or not. It is for the authorities to take steps in accordance with law, if any encroachments are there. 8. In view of the same, this Court, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, is inclined dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondents are directed to look into the issue and take steps if any encroachments are found as alleged by the petitioner by issuing proper notices, inviting explanation and to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard. If no encroachments are found, the same shall also be 7 informed to the petitioner in writing. The said exercise shall be completed in three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that if any injunction is granted or any order is passed from the competent civil Court with regard to the subject property, the authorities shall take the same into consideration while proceeding with the matter.” 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.01.2026 ANS 8 284 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30672/2025 Date: 02.01.2026 ANS