S Venkataramana Vs the State of Ap

Advocate for appellants : Sri S. S. Bhatt Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats.

¶11

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶12

DATE : 2nd December 2025

¶13

P C :

¶14

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.3871 of 2019.

¶15

The petition was filed seeking action against private respondent Nos.9 to 11, who were stated to be raising construction of a house in Chintaparthi Village of Vayalpad Mandal of Chittoor District without any proper permission or sanction from respondent No.7 i.e., the Gram Panchayat.

¶16

The case of the petitioners before the learned single Judge was that the land which was held by the petitioners was only to the extent of Ac.0-06 cents

¶17

2

¶18

whereas the construction was being raised by occupying the road margin/public road of the said village.

¶19

It is not out of place here to mention that permission to raise construction was obtained by the unofficial respondents as early as on 25.09.2018 in regard to Sy.No.173 whereas the petitioners alleged that the construction in fact was being raised in Sy.No.168/2A in DSP Bungalow Street of the aforementioned village.

¶20

The learned single Judge, having considered the matter, held that the private respondents did have good title to Ac.0-06 cents of land which was purchased by the grandfather of respondent No.9 and the father of the unofficial respondent Nos.10 and 11 in the writ petition in a public auction conducted by the then District Board, which was also supported by a registered sale deed dated 07.07.1959. Learned single Judge further proceeded to hold that the allegation that the said respondents were making construction by occupying the road margin was contrary to the facts as was stated by the panchayat authorities. Learned single Judge also held, after recording the statement of the learned counsel for respondent No.7 – Gram Panchayat, that there was no construction at the subject land as alleged by the petitioners and that the subject land was still vacant.

¶21

Learned single Judge, however, held that the permission which had been obtained by the private respondents was obtained as early as in the year 2018, which was valid only for a period of only one year, and therefore, they

¶22

3

¶23

were obliged to obtain permission afresh before they intend to make any construction.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn out attention to two notices dated 25.08.2025 and 13.10.2025 issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Chintaparthi Village wherein it is alleged that the unofficial respondents were building a house in Sy.No.168/2A for which there was no authorization and that the construction plans had not been submitted to the Gram Panchayat. The noticees were also asked to submit the requisite registered documents relating to Sy.No.168/2A.

¶25

Needless to say that the notices indicated to the unofficial respondents that the construction which was being raised by them was illegal besides the fact that they dug the panchayat road with a JCB and had occupied the same in an illegal manner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the permission which had earlier been obtained in the year 2018 by the unofficial respondents and that was not with regard to raising construction over the parcel of land situate in Sy.No.168/2A but Sy.No.173, as was already reflected in our order hereinabove.

¶27

We are informed that there is no permission obtained by the unofficial respondents from the Gram Panchayat for raising construction over the parcel of land situate in Sy.No.168/2A. There may be some truth in the allegation of the learned counsel for the appellants that even when in the year 2018, the

¶28

4

¶29

permission had been obtained by the Gram Panchayat for raising construction in the parcel of land situate in Sy.No.173, the construction was in fact raised in Sy.No.168/2A for which, in fact, there is no permission granted. It is, perhaps, in that context that the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat, in the proceedings before the learned single Judge, had made a statement that no construction at all had been raised in the subject land and that the said plot of land was vacant.

¶30

Be that as it may, now that action has been taken by the authorities of the Gram Panchayat, the same needs to be taken to its logical conclusion. We are informed that some of the officers in the Gram Panchayat including the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat is closely related to the unofficial respondents and therefore, we direct the District Panchayat Officer to ensure that the proceedings initiated pursuant to notices dated 25.08.2025 and 13.10.2025 are conducted under his direct supervision and that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion. It is also directed that no construction be permitted in the absence of any proper authorization and building permission from the Gram Panchayat authorities, who shall also ensure that no part of the road is permitted to be encroached or constructed upon.

¶31