Disposed¶75

P Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jul 2025WP/13202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 – Gram Panchayat notice dated 15.02.2025 (Rc.No.1/2025) under Section 121, Andhra Pradesh Panchayath Raj Act 1994 – removal of under-construction ACC roofed shed as unauthorised structure – settled possession – dispossession only by due process of law – Articles 300-A and 14, Constitution of India – Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs., (2004) 1 SCC 769 – gift settlement deed and pattadar passbook – disposed of with protective direction, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his property except by due process of law; writ petition disposed of with the consent of both counsel, no costs; pending interlocutory applications closed ¶75

P Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 15.02.2025 in Rc.No.1/2025 issued by respondent No.3 under Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayath Raj Act 1994, treating the petitioner's under-construction ACC roofed shed as unauthorised and directing its removal, is legal and valid. +1 more

¶69

Ratio / Principle

When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law (in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.).

¶74

Key takeaways

The respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, except by due process of law; with this direction the writ petition is disposed of with the consent of both counsel, with no costs, and pending interlocutory applications stand closed.ratio¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Single Judge, Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a notice dated 15.02.2025 in Rc.No.1/2025 issued by A. Rangampet Gram Panchayat under Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayath Raj Act 1994, directing removal of the petitioner's under-construction ACC-roofed shed on agricultural land (Survey No.284/1A, Ac.0.38.60 cents) as an unauthorised structure. Counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits, sought only a direction that the petitioner not be dispossessed without due process; the learned Assistant Government Pleader admitted that the petitioner continues in possession and that the authorities would follow due process. Invoking the Supreme Court's decision in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. (footnoted as 2004(1) SCC 769), the Court held that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law, and directed the respondents accordingly. Writ petition disposed of with consent; no costs; pending IAs closed. The legality of the notice itself was not decided on merits.

¶1

APHC010253012025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13202 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o P.Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Agriculturalist, R/o A.Rangampeta, ChandragiriMandal, Tirupati District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj And Rural Development Dept, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District

¶13

The District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District

¶14

A. Rangampet Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Secretary, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3'^'^ Respondent in issuing the impugned notice dt. 15-02-2025 vide proceedings in Rc.No. 1/2025 whereby the petitioner was instructed to remove his under construction ACC roofed shed from his agricultural land as per se illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental rights

¶17

¶18

guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994and rules made thereunder and to consequently set aside the impugned notice issued by the 3^^ respondent vide Rc. No. 1/2025 dt. 15-02-2025 in the interest of justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 to suspend the impugned notice vide Rc. No. 1/2025 dt. 15-02-2025 issued by the 3'"' respondent in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAI AKASH N

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND

¶23

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:SRI M. SUDHIR,SC FOR Z.P.Ps,

¶25

M.P.Ps, GRAM PANCHAYATS

¶26

The Court made the following order:

¶27

¶28

APHC010253012025

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

[3329]

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 13202/2025

¶36

Between:

¶37

1.P CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, S/0 P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURALIST, R/0 A.RANGAMPETA, CHANDRAGIRIMANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER

¶38

¶39

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶40

2.THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶41

3.A RANGAMPET GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, CHANDRAGIRIMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶42

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 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ^ofMandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing^theimpugned notice dt. 15-02- 2025 vide proceedings in Rc.No. 1/2025 whereby the petitioner was instructed to remove his under construction^ACC roofed shed from his agricultural land as per se illegal,^arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19^and21 of the constitution of India and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh^Panchayat

¶43

¶44

¶45

Raj Act, 1994 and rules made there under and to consequently^set aside the impugned notice issued by the 3 respondent^videRc.No. 1/2025 dt. 15-02-2025 in the interest of justice and pass

¶46

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶47

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 pleased to suspend the impugned notice vide Rc. No. 1/2025 dt. 15-02-2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice and pass

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶49

1.SAI AKASH N

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶51

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶52

2.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats

¶53

The Court made the following:

¶54

¶55

¶56

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶57

WRIT PETITION NO.13202 of 2025

¶58

ORDER:

¶59

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^Constitution of India seeking the following relief;

¶60

“..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action^ofthe 3rd Respondent in issuing the impugned notice dt.15.02.2025 vide proceedings in Rc.No. 1/2025 whereby the petitioner was instructed to remove his under construction ACC roofed shed from his agricultural^landas per se illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of^Indiaand contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and rules made thereunder and to consequently set aside the impugned notice issued by the 3 respondent vide Rc.No. 1/2025 dt. 15-02-2025 in the interest of justice and pass...”

¶61

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without

¶62

touching the merits of the case, requested this Court^toissuea

¶63

direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from

¶64

his land, without following due process of law.

¶65

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing the possession^ofsubject land and the respondents authorities would follow due^processof

¶66

law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶67

¶68

It is submitted that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and title holder for the agricultural land in Survey No.284/1A to an extent of Ac.0.38.60 cents situated in A.Rangampeta Village of Chandragiri Mandal. It is further submitted that in the year 2022 the father of the petitioner along with his two sisters by names K. Rajeswari and M.Muniratnamma entered into a partition for their joint family properties by way of a partition deed dated 05.12.2022 and the above referred land fell to the share of K. Rajeswari (petitioner's aunt). It is further submitted that subsequently the said K.Rajeswari out of love and affection for the petitioner herein, executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 17.07.2023 vide document No.2549/2023 in favour of the petitioner herein for the above referred land by duly delivering the possession and title over the property to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the revenue authorities also mutated the petitioner’s name in all the concerned revenue records and issued pattadar passbook in favour of the petitioner.

¶69

It is submitted that the S'- respondent issued a notice dated 15.02.2025 vide proceedings in Rc.No. 1/2025 under Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayath Raj Act 1994 claiming that the

¶70

¶71

petitioner’s under construction of ACC roofed shed is an unauthorized structure being built without obtaining permissions from the respondent authorities and directed the petitioner to remove the shed. It is further submitted that the respondents in trying to highhandedly interfere and trying to demolish he petitioner’s farm shed without following due process of law is unfair, unjust and unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶72

It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents^would amount to depriving the petitioner’s violating constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner’s possession is illegal, still, the petitioner is required to be afforded an opportunity before taking appropriate action and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa^Naidu

¶73

¶74

(Dead) by L.Rs:, when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, except by due process of law.

¶75