APHC010434522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 23781/2026 Between: 1. G VENKATA RAMANA, S/O G. VENKATA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HINDU, PAINTER BY OCCUPATION, R/O H.NO.17/22, L.M. COMPOUND, KOILKUNTLA TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI.-522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL.- 518501 3. THE EXTENSION OFFICERCUMRURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KOILKUNTLA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.- 518134 4. KOILKUNTLA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KOILKUNTLA, KOILKUNTLA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.- 518134 5. GERA MALLESWARI, W/O MANIKYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O H.NO.17/20/1, L.M. COMPOUND, KOILKUNTLA TOWN AND. MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.- 518134 6. KOGILAMMA RANGAMNRIA, W/O LAXMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O L.M. COMPOUND, KOILKUNTLA TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.- 518134 ...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 SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 2 Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent authorities in threatening to demolish the compound wall and encroachment of open site on eastern side in the premises bearing D.No.17/22, L.M. Compound, Koilkuntla Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, at the behest of the unofficial respondents, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 59 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action without following the procedure contemplated under the Statute 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 as orders directing the respondent authorities not to demolish the Petitioner's compound wall of property bearing D.No.17/22, L.M. Compound, Koilkuntla, Nandyal District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI (SC FOR NON SERVICES ZPPS MPPS GP FOR RAYALASEEMA SPSR NELLORE PRAKASAM) The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 3 O R D E R Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent authorities in threatening to demolish the compound wall and encroachment of open site on eastern side in the premises bearing D.No.17/22, L.M.Compound, Koilkuntla Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, at the behest of the unofficial respondents, without issuing any notice, and without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action without following the procedure contemplated under the statute and to pass such other order or orders …” 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he claims ownership over the house and compound bearing Door No.17/22, situated at L.M. Compound, Koilkuntla Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh, through his predecessors-in-title under a Registered Sale Deed dated 13.10.1919, and that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof; that while so, respondent No.5 SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 4 filed O.S.No.172 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, against the petitioner, seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession over a portion of the property abutting the subject property; that the petitioner is contesting the said suit and has filed a written statement therein. The petitioner also raised a counter-claim seeking declaration of his title in respect of the subject property and a Mandatory Injunction directing demolition of the unauthorized construction, if any, raised by respondent No.5. (b) It is further stated that, despite there being no order of stay or any other order passed by any competent Civil Court in favour of respondent No.5, the respondent authorities visited the subject property on 01.08.2026, without issuing any prior show-cause notice to the petitioner, and without conducting any survey or demarcation to ascertain the correct boundaries of the property or to determine the alleged existence of any encroachment, threatened the petitioner with demolition of the compound wall standing on the eastern side of the schedule property, which is stated to be approximately six feet in height. It is further contended that the said threat was made at the instance and behest of respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are allegedly claiming an extent of Ac.0.02 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0.06 SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 5 cents comprised in the compound, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid suit; that if the threatened demolition is permitted, it would cause grave irreparable and irreversible loss and injury to him, as he would be deprived of the protection afforded by the existing compound wall without any adjudication of the rival claims by a competent Civil Court and without following the procedure established by law. (c) It is further contended that the subject matter of the dispute, particularly the extent, boundaries and possession of the petition schedule property, is already sub judice before the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, in O.S.No.172 of 2018, wherein the petitioner has also raised a counter-claim seeking declaration of title. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent authorities to interfere with the subject property, particularly at the instance of the unofficial respondents, without first following due process of law. The petitioner contends that the proposed action of the respondent authorities is actuated by and undertaken at the instigation of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. Today, when the matter has come up before this Court, Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, on written instructions, received from 4th respondent, SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 6 submits that the Gram Panchayat never interfered with the possession of the petitioner over the house and compound bearing Door No.17/22, L.M.Compound, Koilkuntla, and no demolition of any compound wall has been carried out, and no written notice has been issued, and no coercive steps have been taken by this respondent against the petitioner. He further submits that on verification and on the basis of complaints received, it was noticed that there is an encroachment of public road/road margin on the eastern side of the premises by construction of a compound wall, and it was found to be projecting onto the public road vested in the Gram Panchayat, under Section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that the petitioner incorrectly invoked Sections 58 to 60/Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as the said provisions deal with vesting of certain porambokes, acquisition of land and taxation, and have no application to removal of encroachments on public roads. The correct provision governing removal of encroachments on public roads vested in the Gram Panchayat is Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules 2011. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the respondent No.4- SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 7 Gram Panchayat undertakes that a proper survey and demarcation will be conducted through the competent revenue authorities to ascertain the exact extent of encroachment, if any, on the public road/road margin, and thereafter, due process of law as contemplated under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj At, 1994 read with the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules 2011, which includes issuance of notice, opportunity of hearing and reasoned order, will be strictly followed before taking any steps for clearance of encroachment, and no precipitate or coercive action will be taken without following the said procedure. The written instructions are placed on record. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, and having perused the written instructions placed on record, this Court finds that the principal grievance of the petitioner is apprehension of demolition of the compound wall without prior notice, survey, demarcation or compliance with the procedure prescribed by law. In view of the specific undertaking made by the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions from 4th respondent, that no coercive or swift action shall be taken against the petitioner and that the alleged encroachment, if SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 8 any, shall first be ascertained by conducting a proper survey and demarcation through the competent Revenue authorities, this Court, without going into merits of the Writ Petition, is of the view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner can be addressed by directing the respondents to adhere strictly to the procedure contemplated under law. The said issue shall be determined by the competent authority only after conducting an appropriate survey and demarcation and after considering the relevant revenue and Panchayat records. 6. Therefore, respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat is directed that if it proposes to proceed against the petitioner on the allegation of encroachment, they shall first cause a proper survey and demarcation to be conducted through the competent Revenue authorities, after issuing due notice to the petitioner, and if any encroachment is found, 4th respondent shall thereafter issue appropriate notice to the petitioner, afford him a reasonable opportunity of submitting his objections/hearing, consider the material placed by him and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011, as applicable. Till such exercise is completed and a decision is taken in accordance SRK, J W.P.No.23781 of 2026 9 with law, 4th respondent is directed not to take any coercive steps for demolition or removal of the compound wall. It is further made clear that this order does not preclude the competent authority from taking action in accordance with law if, upon due survey and after following the prescribed procedure, any encroachment upon the public road/road margin is established. 7. With the above observation and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 25th August, 2026. DNB