APHC010444372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1012 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-20 [3584] Thummala Madhavi ...Appellant Vs. Sree Ramakrishna Nagar Plots Owners Welfare Association and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: MR.A. SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MR. CHAKANA NEERAJ MURTHY (R-1); GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV. (R-2 TO R-4); MR.MATTEGUNTA SUDHIR, S.C. FOR ZPP, MPP, GRAM PANCHAYAT (FOR R-5). *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present intra-Court appeal preferred by appellant/5th respondent in the writ petition, assails the order, dated 20.07.2026, in W.P. No.10888 of 2026, by which learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. 2. 1st respondent/writ petitioner preferred writ petition questioning the inaction of 4th respondent therein in proceeding against the 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1012 of 2026 unauthorised constructions made by the appellant/5th respondent in deviation of approved plan, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, to demolish the unauthorised structures raised in Plot No.89 in Sy.No.84 of Basinikinda Village, Madanapalle Mandal. 3. 1st respondent owned an extent of Ac.12.35 cents in Survey No.84 of Basinikinda Village, Madanapalle Mandal. The same was developed into layout and thereafter, plots were alienated to the members. The appellant/5th respondent purchased Plot No.89 admeasuring 266.66 yards through registered sale deed, dated 28.02.2020. She is stated to have encroached upon plot No.88 and thus, O.S.No.673 of 2025 was filed on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle, for permanent injunction, which is pending. Similarly, even the owner of Plot No.88 also filed O.S.No.841 of 2025 for similar relief, which is also pending in the same Court. That being so, appellant/5th respondent started constructing residential house based on approved building plan issued by the Gram Panchayat. In that background, 1st respondent/writ petitioner made complaint, dated 10.01.2026, pointing out that the construction was being carried on in violation of the building plan, as the same was not being considered, the writ petition was preferred. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1012 of 2026 4. The learned Single Judge, considering submissions made by parties, disposed of the writ petition directing concerned authorities to dispose representation, dated 10.01.2026, submitted by 1st respondent/writ petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, appellant/5th respondent preferred present writ appeal. 5. Heard Mr.A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.Chakana Neeraj Murthy, learned counsel for 1st respondent/writ petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that though learned Single Judge issued notice initially, even without allowing the appellant to file counter-affidavit meeting the averments in the writ petition, disposed writ petition with an innocuous direction to dispose of the representation made by 1st respondent/writ petitioner, which, in fact, would have serious consequences, inasmuch as the same issue is seized by the competent civil Court. He further contended that the entire allegation, even in the representation made to the Gram Panchayat, since is regarding the alleged encroachment into Plot No.88, which is subject matter in the pending Suits, authorities cannot examine the same by stepping into the shoes of competent Civil Court. He further contended that the writ petitioner conveniently supressed important 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1012 of 2026 material fact that he filed I.A.No.62 of 2026 in O.S.No.673 of 2025, for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to identify whether any portion of neighbouring plot has been encroached by appellant, and that the same was allowed vide order, dated 18.02.2026, therefore, had appellant given opportunity to file counter-affidavit, all these aspects would have been placed before the learned Single Judge for effective consideration of the matter. 7. Mr.Chakana Neeraj Murthy, learned counsel for 1st respondent/ writ petitioner, tried to support the impugned order, by contending that no prejudice would cause to the appellant as the direction was merely to consider and dispose of the representation and that no specific direction has been issued qua the appellant, thus, pleaded for dismissal of the writ appeal. 8. Definitely there appears to be serious dispute between the appellant and the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, owner of Plot No.88, regarding the area falling in Plot Nos.88 and 89, which is pending adjudication in O.S.Nos.673 and 841 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle. 9. Learned counsel for 1st respondent/writ petitioner fairly admitted that there is no interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs in aforesaid Suits. He also does not deny that Advocate-Commissioner was appointed for 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1012 of 2026 eliciting the aspect of encroachment and that the report is yet to be submitted. 10. We also find that the writ petitioner has not mentioned anywhere in his pleadings in the writ petition regarding filing of such application, which would have bearing on the proceedings. 11. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that all these aspects require to be considered in deciding the prayer in the writ petition. 12. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on its merits. The appellant is permitted to file counter-affidavit within three weeks from today. 13. Accordingly, writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs