APHC010703162025 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: 36703/2025 Between: 1. N BHASKARA SATYA PRASAD, S/O.LATE VISWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO. 5- 92/1, MAMIDIKUDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AT AMALAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AMALAPURAM DIVISION, AMALAPURAM, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAMIDIKUDURU POLICE STATION, MAMIDIKUDURU, DR.B.R.AMBEDKARKONASEEMA DISTRICT. 2 6. THE MAMIDIKUDURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MAMIDIKUDURU, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 7. PEDAPUDI SRIRAMULU, S/O.NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED MAJOR, R/O. H.NO.2-64, NEAR BRIDGE, MAKANAPALEM VILLAGE, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 8. PEDAPUDI MANIKANTA, S/O. PEDAPUDI SRIRAMULU, AGED MAJOR, R/O. H.NO.2-64, NEAR BRIDGE, MAKANAPALEM VILLAGE, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring (a) the action of the 6th respondent in not demolishing the illegal and unauthorized constructions carrying on/carried on in the land an extent of Ac.0. 0 1/2 cents situated at Makanapalem Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal,Sy.No.18/1 of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, (b) the action of the 5 respondent in not taking appropriate action such as registration of crime pursuant to the representation/complaint dated 18- 05-2024, (c) the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not cancelling the patta vide proceedings dated 24-01-2024 issued in favor 7th respondent pertaining to the land in an extent of Ac.0.0 1/2 cents situated at Sy.No.18/1 of Makanapalem Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act and consequently direct the official respondents to demolish the illegal structures made by the respondents 7 and 8 land in an extent of Ac.0.0 1/2 cents situated at Sy.No. 18/1 of Makanapalem Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District and further also direct the 5th respondent to take appropriate action pursuant to the representation/complaint dated 18-05-2024 and further also direct the respondents 2 to 4 to cancel the patta in favor of 7th 3 respondent pertaining to the land in an extent of Ac.0.0 1/2 cents situated at Sy.No.18/1 of Makanapalem Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District 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 respondents 2 to 6 to stop the illegal constructions carrying on by the respondents 7 and 8 land in an extent of Ac.0.0 1/2 cents situated at Sy.No 18/1 of Makanapalem Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V V SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Challenging the action of the respondents in not cancelling the patta if any granted in favour of the 7th respondent pertaining to the land in an extent of Ac.0.01½ cents situated in Sy.No.18/1 of Makanapalem Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, and also not demolishing the illegal structures raised by the respondents in the said property, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P.V.V.Satya Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for 4 Panchayat Raj, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the unofficial respondents are claiming the subject property of the petitioner on the basis of house site pattas granted in their favour and making illegal constructions. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents to cancel the said patta and demolish the illegal construction. However, no action has been initiated by the respondents. He further submitted that if the said action of the respondents is allowed to continue, it would affect the rights of the petitioner, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents collectively submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, as such, he cannot ventilate his grievance before this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, there are serious civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and as rightly contended by the learned counsel 5 for the respondents, the petitioner cannot ventilate his grievance before this Court. It has repeatedly been held by Apex Court and various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. The jurisdiction is special and extra-ordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly as held in Mohan Pandey and Others V. Usha Rani Rajgaria1. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach competent civil Court, if so desired or advised. 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 1 (1992 )4 SCC 61