APHC010718892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 766/2026 Between: 1. SRI T VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. T.BASKARAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC FARMER, R/O. H.NO.2-18, RESIDENT OF INJETIVARI PETA, PASUPALLI VILLAGE, EAST GODAVARI/ DR.B.R.AM., KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (533228) 2. SRI MONTHA SRIMANNARAYANA, S/O. M.YEDUKONDALU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC FARMER, H.NO.2-8, RESIDENT OF INJETIVARI PETA, PASUPALLI VILLAGE, EAST GODAVARI/ DR.B.R.AM., KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (533228) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPALSECRETARY,PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. (522238) 2. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, (DPO), AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI/DR.B.R.AM. KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (533201) 3. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, (MPDO), AMBAJIPETA, EAST GODAVARI/DR.B.R.AM. KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (533214) 4. THE PASUPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PASUPALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, EAST 2 GODAVARI/DR.B.R.AM. KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (533214) 5. THE TAHSILDAR, AMBAJIPETA, EAST GODAVARI/DR.B.R.AM. KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (533214) 6. MATTAPARTHI NAGA RAJU, S/O. M.VENNNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. PASUPALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI/DR.B.R.AM. KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH (533214). 7. MATTAPARTHI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. M.NAGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. PASUPALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI/DR.B.R.AM.KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH (533214). ...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 the inaction of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in acting upon the proceedings vide Ref 332/2025, Dated 11.11.2025, issued by the 5th Respondent and even after issuing notice vide RC 1/2025, dated 24.11.2025 by the 4th Respondent, in respect to encroachment in Sy.No.13/2, on irrigation channel running from Kanaka Durga Temple of Injetivari peta of Pasupalli Village, Ambajipeta Mandal, East Godavari/Dr.B.R.Am., Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh as illegal, discriminative, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to provisions and procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1994 and Rules made therein and consequently direct the respondents to remove illegal encroachment in Sy.No.13/2, on irrigation channel running from Kanaka Durga Temple of Injetivari peta of Pasupalli Village, Ambajipeta Mandal, East Godavari/Dr.B.R.Am., Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh and pass 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 to direct the Respondent No.2 to 4 to remove illegal encroachment made by 3 Respondent No.6 and 7 irrigation channel running from Kanaka Durga Temple of Injetivari peta of Pasupalli Village, Ambajipeta Mandal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Srinivasa Basava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 and 2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the 5th respondent and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents 6 and 7. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent having issued a notice vide RC:1/2025 dated 24.11.2025 (Ex.P4), to the 6th respondent to submit an explanation, if any, did not proceed further as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (herein referred as “Act”) and the Rules made there under. 3. The writ petition was listed on 19.01.2026. This Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out personal notice to the respondents 6 and 7 by speed post with acknowledgement due and file proof 4 of service in the Registry. Proof of service was filed vide W.P.USR.No.11586 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026. However, none appeared for respondents 5 and 6. 4. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, submitted written instructions of the 4th respondent. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions of the 4th respondent, a notice was issued to the 6th respondent, pointing out encroachment, and since no further action was initiated, the petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition. The respondents 6 and 7 filed suit in O.S.No.348 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amalapuram, seeking a perpetual injunction. Since the suit is pending, no further steps were taken. The instructions further indicate that the authority will take necessary steps as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court by following the provisions of the Act. 6. It is very unfortunate that the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent, having issued notice Ex.P4, failed to initiate further action against encroachment by adhering to the procedure mandated under Section 98 of the Act, coupled with G.O.Ms.No.188, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department dated 21.07.2011. Issuance of a statutory notice pointing out encroachment or other deficiencies is not an empty formality. Unless there is a restraint order by any Court or any other statutory authority, the authority empowered to issue notice must proceed further and act in accordance with law. No further direction is needed in this record. 5 7. It is not the case of the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent that the Civil Court granted an injunction in O.S.No.348 of 2025 filed by the respondents 6 and 7. Having set the law into motion by issuing notice Ex.P4, the failure on the part of the Secretary of the 4th respondent must have proceeded further as per Section 98 of the Act, r/w Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, inaction on the part of the Panchayat Secretary deserves to be deprecated. In fact, a procedure was prescribed under Section 98 of the Act r/w Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 to deal with the encroachments. In the absence of any restraint order by either this Court or the Civil Court preventing the Panchayat Secretary, the Executive Authority, the authority must discharge the duties in accordance with the law. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the state of admission, with the consent of all the learned counsel, directing the Panchayat Secretary of the 4th respondent to follow the procedure mandated under 98 of the Act r/w Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011, regarding the encroachment pointed out in RC:1/2025 dated 24.11.2025 (Ex.P4). There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The Registry is directed to mark a copy to the learned Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department. 6 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 09.02.2026 SNI 7 244 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 766 OF 2026 Date: 09.02.2026 SNI