1 APHC010534972023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition No: 27690/2023 along with W.P.No.10322/2026 & C.C.(S.R.).No.3762 of 2026 Writ Petition No: 27690/2023: Between: K Chenchaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S BALA MOHAN RANGA 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV WRIT PETITION NO: 10322/2026 Between: Csi Church ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S BALA MOHAN RANGA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. SANAKA MANASWI 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra C.C.(S.R.).No.3762 of 2026 Between: K Chenchaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Lella Harikrishna. ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: Questioning the inaction of the respondent authorities against the construction of Church made by the 7th respondent (CSI church) in the Gram Panchayat property to an extent of Ac.0.83 cents in Sy.No.59-8 situated in Ganginenipalem village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, the W.P.No.27690 of 2023 was filed wherein this court has granted interim order dated 19.10.2023. 2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in locking the church premises to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.59-8 situated in Ganginenipalem village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, without 3 considering and passing orders on the explanation submitted by petitioner church on 23.01.2026, the W.P.No.10322/2026 was filed. 3. The C.C.(SR).No.3762/2026 is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27690 of 2023. 4. Since all the three matters are interlinked, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. Heard Ms Sanaka Manaswi, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.C.(SR).No.3762/2026 and W.P.No.27690 of 2023, Sri S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10322/2026 and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27690 of 2023 submitted that, despite bringing to the notice of the respondent authorities about the illegal construction of church in Gram Panchayat property, the authorities have not taken any action. She further submitted that, this court has granted interim order dated 19.10.2023 directing the Gram Panchayat to take steps against the construction of church, if the same is being constructed unauthorizedly in the Gram Panchayat property. She further submitted that, despite of the said interim direction, as the respondents have not taken any action, the above contempt case has been filed. 7. Sri S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the petitioner (Church) in W.P.No.10322/2026 submitted that, the authorities have issued notices 4 alleging that petitioner has made illegal construction in the Gram Panchayat property and the petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 23.01.2026. He further submitted that, without passing any orders on the same, the respondent authorities are interfering with the church and have locked the church premises, which affects the rights of the petitioner. As such prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 8. Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat contended that, upon the directions of this court, notices were already sent to the petitioner in W.P.No.10322 of 2026, as such there lies no contempt against the respondent authorities. He further submitted that, the petitioner in W.P.No.10322/2026, having submitted an explanation to the said notice, filed the said writ petition on the alleged ground that the authorities are interfering with the church premises. He further submitted that, on the explanation submitted by the petitioner-church, enquiry is pending and that the authorities will definitely take steps in accordance with law. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties. 8. It can be seen that, one writ petition is filed against respondent authorities for not taking steps on the illegal construction of Church made by the 7th respondent (CSI church) in the Gram Panchayat property and the other was filed by the CSI Church for not considering the its explanation and locking out the church premises. However it is the contention of the learned 5 standing counsel that the authorities have an intention to follow the procedure contemplated under law. In view of the same, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions: (i) The respondent authorities are directed to pass orders on application made by the petitioner in W.P.No.10322/2026 as expeditiously as possible. Till then, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the church premises. (ii) If the authorities found that the constructions made by the petitioner in W.P.No.10322/2026 are illegal, they shall take steps against the same in accordance with law by issuing proper notices and providing an opportunity of personal hearing to all the concerned parties within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner in W.P.No.27690/2023. (iii) In the meantime, the petitioner in W.P.No.10322/2026 is directed not to proceed with any further constructions in the subject property without there being any building permission. Any steps taken pursuant to the enquiry, shall be informed to the petitioner in W.P.No.27690/2023 in writing. With the above directions, W.P.No.27690/2023 & W.P.No.10322/2026 are disposed of. In view of the same, the C.C.(SR).No.3762/2026 is closed giving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application, if so desired. No costs. 6 Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS