Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010211132018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 9192/2018 Between: 1. PALLI PRABHAKAR REDDY, R/O PSLN REDDY STREET, AKIVIDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, AKIVIDU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, ELURU. 6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU. 7. SUB TREASURY OFFICER, TREASURY OFFICE, AKIVIDU, WEST 2 VS,J W.P.No.9192 of 2018 GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. GRAM PANCHAYAT, AKIVIDU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AKIVIDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. AKIVIDU NAGAR PANCHAYATH, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, AKIVIDU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.30.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025 ...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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Roc.No. E4/e-1145576/2017 dt. 31-01-2018, which was supplied to the Petitioner on 15-03-2018, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the park, in any manner whatsoever, developed in Ac. 0.20 cents of land situated in Sy.No. 470/4 of Akividu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the operation of the issued by the 2nd respondent in Roc. No. E4/e- 1145576/2017 dt. 31-01-2018 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 vacate the interim order granted on 21-3-2018 in IA.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.9192 of 2018 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 grant leave to file accompanied reply affidavit to the counter 3 VS,J W.P.No.9192 of 2018 affidavit filed by the 4TH respondent in WP No. 9192/2018 by condoning the delay if any in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 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 implead the proposed respondent i.e, Akividu Nagar Panchayath Rep by its Commissioner, Akividu, West Godavari District as 9th respondent in the above WP No. 9192/2018 for proper and effective adjudication of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 4. K K DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.9192 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Roc.No. E4/e-1145576/2017 dt. 31-01-2018, which was supplied to the Petitioner on 15-03-2018, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the park, in any manner whatsoever, developed in Ac. 0.20 cents of land situated in Sy.No. 470/4 of Akividu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District and pass…” 2. The petitioner’s father by name late Palli Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, a resident of Akividu village of West Godavari district was a freedom fighter and in his honor, the 8th respondent, vide resolution No.238, dated 26.02.2007 resolved to name a road after him and has allotted Acs.0.20 cents of land in R.S.No.470/4 situated in Akividu village for construction of park and for erecting his statue. Accordingly, a park was constructed in the said land. 3. While the matter stood thus, pursuant to a request made by respondent Nos.2 and 7, the 8th respondent, vide resolution No.132, dated 30.03.2016 resolved to alienate land admeasuring 500 square yards situated in Sy.No.252 of Madiwada revenue village for construction of Sub-Treasury Office, Akividu and accordingly, physical possession was 5 VS,J W.P.No.9192 of 2018 delivered to the respondents. Pending the said construction, the 5th respondent requested higher authorities to allot the land in R.S.No.470/4 of Akividu village wherein, the aforementioned park is constructed. In pursuance of the same, the 4th respondent addressed a letter to the 8th respondent on 29.12.2017 seeking permission for the same; however, without waiting for response from the 8th respondent, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 31.01.2018 allotted 0.05 cents of land in Sy.No.470/4 of Akividu village for construction of Sub-Treasury Office building, Akividu. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 21.03.2018, this Court passed an interim order suspending the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.E4/e-1145576/2017, dated 31.01.2018, pending disposal of the present petition. 5. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit enclosed with a vacate stay petition, denying the averments made by the petitioner and further stated that no park is developed in the subject land as averred by the petitioner and that the land belongs to Revenue department. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri. Y. Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt. V. Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities. 6 VS,J W.P.No.9192 of 2018 7. Perused the entire material available on record. Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions has submitted that pursuant to a resolution passed by the 8th respondent in the year 2007, the statue of the petitioner’s father was erected and the same is intact even as on today. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the respondents, except developing the said land, have never intended to disturb the said statue. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed not to disturb the statue erected in the subject property, without following due process of law. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 30.06.2026 Gss Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reportable No