APHC010446322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1008 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3584] Mamilla Lakshmi Devamma ...Appellant Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 31st August 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ M.Sudhir (Standing Counsel) JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) The present appeal is preferred by writ petitioner assailing the order dated 01.07.2026 in W.P. No.4160 of 2026, by which, learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition. Appellant/writ petitioner filed writ petition questioning the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in taking action against 4th respondent for removing illegal constructions raised without any permission over the rasta and thereby blocking ingress and egress of petitioner's property to be 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1008 of 2026 illegal, arbitrary and consequently to demolish the illegal constructions so raised forthwith. 2. (a) The appellant/writ petitioner and 4th respondent are related parties, in pursuance to family partition deed dated 13.06.1972, both have inherited house site properties adjacent to each other. Appellant claims that she succeeded an extent of 24 square yards in Survey Nos.43/4 and 44, more specifically as described in the writ affidavit. As per the boundaries mentioned, the southern side of the said property consists of rasta, which enable the appellant to access east-west public rasta. (b) The 4th respondent stated to have encroached upon the said rasta and dug borewell, besides raising constructions, thus, she filed O.S. No.640 of 2025 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal, seeking mandatory injunction for removal of the borewell and further restraining 4th respondent from causing any objection in using the rasta for ingress and egress, which is pending consideration. (c) Despite the same, 4th respondent was proceeding with construction without even obtaining building permission from the Competent Authority, as such, she made representation dated 24.11.2025 to respondents 2 and 3 for initiating appropriate action 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1008 of 2026 to stop illegal constructions upon the rasta meant for ingress and egress. As the 2nd respondent vide communication dated 12.01.2026 refused to initiate action on the ground of pendency of civil disputes between the parties, present writ petition came to be filed. (d) The writ petition was disposed at admission stage, having regard to the written instructions of learned standing counsel for gram panchayat that they have already initiated action by issuing notice dated 23.01.2026, followed by second notice dated 10.02.2026, directing the 4th respondent to stop any further constructions over subject property. (e) Dissatisfied with aforesaid directions, the appellant preferred present appeal. 3. Heard Sri Anup Koushik Karvadi, learned counsel, appearing for appellant and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M.Sudhi, learned standing counsel, appearing for official respondents. 4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that though learned Single Judge took note of the written instructions that the official respondents have already issued orders directing the 4th respondent to stop further constructions, the consequential 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1008 of 2026 prayer of appellant for demolition and removal of the structures already erected was not considered. Unless the structures are removed, the appellant would not be in a position to access the public road, thus, would urge this court to issue appropriate directions to respondents 2 and 3 for removal of the structures already erected. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, however, submits that in pursuance to the complaint made by the appellant that 4th respondent has been constructing or raising structures without securing any permission, action has already been initiated and necessary steps were taken to ensure no further constructions are made. However, learned counsel could not controvert to the submission of appellant that once constructions are found to be unauthorised, not only the same should be stopped but also be removed by undertaking the exercise of demolition, which apparently has not been undertaken so far. 6. The writ petition was disposed at admission stage without notice to the private respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we find no good reason to keep the appeal pending. We therefore dispose the appeal with liberty to the appellant to raise any further grievance before respondents 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1008 of 2026 2 and 3, in which event, the said respondents shall enquire into the issue and after calling for necessary explanation from the 4th respondent by issuing prior notice shall decide the grievance strictly in accordance with law. The order of learned Single Judge thus stands modified. 7. In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS