Date of reserved for orders : NIL Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010422012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21531 of CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 21531 of 2025 Between: 1. G PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. G. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. D. NO.24 MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE HINDUPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HINDUPUR, 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 1 NIL 16.07.2026 23.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21531 of 2025 IN/ AND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 21531 of 2025 G PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. G. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. D. NO.24 MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE HINDUPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. D. NO.24-1-86, ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE HINDUPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, 2 6. G KRISHTAPPA, S/O. G. MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO.24-1-64, MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR 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 the respondents No.2 to 5 in allowing the 5th respondent to raise unauthorized constructions by encroaching the road despite Endorsement in Roc. NO.151/2020/G1 dated 06-06-2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to remove unauthorized constructions in the road area situated between B.C colony road and House No.24-1-11, Mothukapalli, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to stop the unauthorized constructions in any manner by the 6th respondent in the road portion of the government situated between B.C colony road House No. No.24-1-11, Mothukapalli, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 3 CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025 Between: 1. G. PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. G. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. D. NO.24-1-86, MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. G MALLIKARJUNA, THE HINDUPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT. 2. A SHYAM PRASAD, DISTRICT COLLECTOR,SRISATYASAI DISTRICT. 3. G VENKATESHU, THE TAHSILDAR,HINDUPUR SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT. 4. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT. 5. G KRISHTAPPA, S/O. G. MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO.24-1-64, MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to summon the respondents and punish her under section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate violation of order dated 04-09.2025 in WP No.21531/2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K 4 2. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY 3. GUDAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA 4. A JAYANTHI The Court made the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21531 of 2025 IN/ AND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER:- Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondents No.2 to 4 in restraining the Respondent No.5 to raise unauthorized constructions by encroaching the road, despite an endorsement dated 06.06.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.6 was encroached the public road and resorted to certain constructions, which were objected by the Petitioner. It is also submitted that though the Respondents No.2 had issued proceedings dated 06.06.2025 calling upon the Respondent No.6 to remove the unauthorized constructions by encroaching public property no further steps have been taken. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 are opposing each other in civil proceedings. The suit was initially filed for injunction, which was decreed in favour of Respondent No.6 and in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was allowed and that Second Appeal is pending before this Court. It is submitted that the suit is filed for private property and in the schedule property the suit does not relate to open area/ public road. 6 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that vide Memo dated 12.09.2025, the Petitioner has placed on record the photographs of the existing temporary shed, which is constructed by encroaching on the road. Though, the Respondent No.2 has removed the unauthorized structures on the road in the year 2024, the Respondent No.6 has again raised a construction by encroaching on the road. 5. It is submitted that in the Counter filed by the Respondent No.2 that the Respondent No.2 has issued proceedings calling upon the Respondent No.6 to remove the unauthorized encroachment on the road in front of the Petitioner’s house and on failure of Respondent No.6 to remove the said structures, the Respondent No.2 had sent their men and get the unauthorized construction removed. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 would submit that the subject property of the Writ Petition is a public road as claimed by the Petitioner and that the Respondent No.6 is the owner and possessor of the said area, which is adjacent to the house of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 are related and that they are opposed each other in the civil proceedings pertaining to the said property. 7. It is also submitted that the issue relating to the title of the property is pending adjudication in Second Appeal No.419 of 2008 on the file of this Court. It is also submitted that the Petitioner instead of pursuing the legal 7 remedy in S.A.No.419 of 2008 has filed the present Writ Petition by suppression of facts with regard to title of Respondent No.6 over the property. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the schedule property of the suit and the Appeal and Second Appeal is completely different distinct and writ petition property. It is submitted that the subject property, which is unauthorized occupation of Respondent No.6. 9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and learned counsel for the Respondent No.6. 10. Perused the record. 11. As seen from the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.6, unauthorized construction over the public property was sought to be removed by issuing a notice. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.2 has taken action and removed the unauthorized construction in the year 2024. However, as seen from the photographs submits by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, they are appears to be another construction over the subject property. In order to determine the issue whether the subject construction has encroached in public road or not, it is for the Respondent No.2 to send their town surveyor or any other competent officer to conduct proper survey and take immediate steps for restoring the public property. 12. With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As the Writ Petition is disposed of, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 16.07.2026 KK Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑