APHC010596702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31037/2025 Between: 1. KOTTAMSETTY RAMBABU, S/O. YELLAMANDAIAH, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHERKUMPALEM VILLAGE, ATCHMAPET MANDAL, PLANADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR'S BUNGLOW, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, ATCHAMPET MANDAL ATCHAMET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PLANADU DISTRICT. 6. THE CHERUKUMPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CHRUKUMPALEM, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 direction, an order or a writ more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondent particularly 4th, 5th, 6threspondent in forming a sewerage in private property of the petitioner in Sy.No.256/30, D.No,4/72, Cherukumpalem Village, causing damage to the house structure by digging land too close to the foundations of the house as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to forms any sewerage system, canal close to the house especially the land of the petitioner house in Sy.No.256/30 of Cherukumalem Village, Atchamet Mandal, Palnadu District 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 consequently direct the respondents not to forms any sewerage too close to the house especially the land of the petitioner house in Sy.No.256/30 of Cherukumalem Village, Atchamet Mandal, Palnadu District in the interest of justice 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 vacate the order dated 12.11.2025 passed orders in W.P. No. 31037 of 2025 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SALIKITI KARUNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: 3 ::ORDER:: Heard Sri S.Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 and 3, Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2 and 4, and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondents 4 to 6 in forming a sewerage drain in the private property of the petitioner in Sy.No.256/30, D.No.4/72, Cherukumpalem Village, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner constructed a residential house in ancestral property in Sy.No.256/30 of Cherukumpalem Village. While making the construction of the house, at the request of the village elders, the petitioner left a piece of land for the free flow of rainwater. The Panchayat Secretary of the 6th respondent, under the guise of forming a sewerage drain, removed the clay filled by the petitioner to protect the compound wall. The petitioner objected to the same. The petitioner also made a complaint to the SHO, Atchampet. The petitioner also made a representation dated 16.09.2025 to the District Collector. 4. An interim direction was granted on 12.11.2025, directing the concerned respondents not to form the sewage drain close to the petitioner’s house. 5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 6th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the neighbours gave multiple complaints in PGRS vide PLND20250901416 dated 15.09.2025 and PLND202510061390 dated 17.09.2025, regarding obstruction of drainage water by the petitioner. The petitioner also raised a cement edge on the road margin in Sy.No.93. The report of the Mandal Surveyor, Atchampet, discloses that the petitioner is having house in Sy.No.93 (after re-survey), including the said drain. The total extent of land in Sy.No.93 is Ac.6.24 cents, and the same is included in the list 4 of Prohibitory Properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The Gram Panchayat initiated action based on the complaints to provide a drainage facility on the road margin. However, the petitioner constructed a cement edge over the road margin by closing the drain. The petitioner, without any manner of right, title or authority, claimed ownership over the road margin and illegally raised unauthorised construction thereon by closing the existing public drain and obstructing the free flow of waste and sewage water through the public drainage system. Due to the illegal and unauthorised act of the petitioner, the natural flow of the drainage water has been obstructed, resulting in stagnation of sewage water. The stagnant sewage water is overflowing onto the cement road, causing serious inconvenience to the general public, creating unhygienic and insanitary conditions and obstructing the ingress and egress of the villagers. 6. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the counter-affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents reiterated their contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit and in the counter-affidavit. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had a residential house in Sy.No.256/30 of Cherukumpalem Village. As seen from the representation dated 30.10.2025 (Ex.P2), the petitioner inherited Ac.0.0006 cents of house site from his ancestors and later constructed a pucca house and cattle shed. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he left out some land for widening Donka and left additional land on the Western side. In the counter-affidavit, it was specifically contended that the house of the petitioner is situated in Sy.No.93. The petitioner constructed a cement edge over the road margin by closing the drain before the petitioner’s house. Thus, there is a serious dispute regarding the extent of land owned by 5 the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat shall keep the streets in a hygienic condition. 9. Chapter-II, Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, reads as follows: “The cleaning of streets, the removal of rubbish heaps, jungle growth and prickly-pear, the filling in of the disused wells, insanitary ponds, pools, ditches, pits or hollows and other improvements of the sanitary condition of the village.” 10. In the case at hand, neighbours made complaints in PGRS regarding the petitioner obstructing drainage water, and the Gram Panchayat initiated necessary steps for the formation of drainage. 11. As noted supra, in para-5 of the counter-affidavit, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner constructed a cement edge over the road margin by closing the drain. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner rebutting the said averment in the counter-affidavit. 12. The Mandal Surveyor’s report filed along with the counter-affidavit would manifest that the petitioner’s house is in Sy.No.93, and the total extent of the survey number is Ac.6.24 cents. The side drain is also in Sy.No.93. As seen from the PGRS complaints filed along with the counter-affidavit, the drainage was constructed next to the petitioner’s house. The petitioner closed the drainage with gravel, and the stagnant sewage water is overflowing on the cement road, which would definitely cause inconvenience to the general public and unsanitary conditions. As noted supra, it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide drainage for the free flow of the sewage water. 13. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally, this Court will not adjudicate the disputed questions of title. If the petitioner is claiming rights and title over a certain extent of the property, and in case of dispute, the petitioner must approach the Civil Court and get a 6 declaration of title. This Court, in the facts of this case, does not find any violation of Article 21 vis-à-vis the house property as pleaded by the petitioner in forming the drainage. 14. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the construction undertaken by the Gram Panchayat vis-à-vis the drainage canal shall not affect the compound wall of the petitioner’s house. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 18.03.2026 SNI 7 237 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.31037 of 2025 Dated: 18.03.2026 SNI