Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26998 (AP)

KANDE SRINIVASA RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/34756/2025 · 2026-01-04

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010670162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34756/2025 Between: 1. KANDE SRINIVASA RAO, S/O CHALAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, H/O OBBAPURAM VILLAGE, DONAKONDA GRAM PANCHAYAT, DONAKONDA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3. DONAKONDA GRAM PACHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DONAKONDA VILLAGE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, MARKAPUR DIVISION, PRAKASAM 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 any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd and 4th 2 respondent in interfering and trying to dispossess the petitioner from property to an extent of 25 X 50 feet situated in Sy. No. 245 in Obbapuram Village, Donakonda Gram Panchayat, Prakasam district without any notice is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principals of natural justice and to 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 to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from property to an extent of 25 X 50 feet situated in Sy. No. 245 of Obbapuram Village, Donakonda Gram Panchayat, Prakasam district pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd & 4th respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the property to an extent of 25X50 feet situated in Sy.No.245 of Obbapuram Village, Donakonda Gram Panchayat, Prakasam District, without any notice and without following due procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat 3 and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, the respondent authorities are interfering and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property and if the said action is allowed, it affects the rights of the petitioner, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on written instructions of the Panchayat Secretary, Donakonda Village, Prakasam District, submitted that the petitioner, without obtaining any permission from the Gram Panchayat made construction in the subject property and the authorities have an intention to take steps in accordance with law, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5. Taking the said submissions and the written instructions into consideration, as the respondent authorities have an intention to follow law, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counter, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the subject property except under due process of law.” 4 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th January, 2026 RKS