Mogadati Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MOGADATI SANT H OSH KUMAR, S/O. MOGADATI SU D HAKARARAO HINDU, AGED A B OUT 31 YEARS, VOLUNTEER, R/O. EEDARA VILLAGE AGIRIPA L LI MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT.

¶13

MOGADATI NARESH KUMAR, S/O. MOGADATI SU D HAKARARAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. EEDARA VILLAGE AGIRIP A LLI MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT.

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP B Y PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SEC R ETARIAT, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶17

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT, MAGISTRATE, EL U RU DISTRICT, ELURU.

¶18

THE TAHSILDHA R , AGIRIPALLI MANDAL AGIRI P ALLI ELURU DISTRICT

¶19

EEDARA GRAM A PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY E E DARA VILLAGE, AGIRIPALLI MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT.

¶20

BURADAGUNTA TIRUPATAIAH, S/O SOBHANDRI, A G ED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O D.N O .5-36, EEDARA VILLAGER, AGIRIP A LLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER T HE COURT'S

¶21

RC,J W.P.No.21442 of 2023

¶22

2

¶23

ORDER DT.18.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2023

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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 Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their property adm 133.1 sq.yards in R.S.no.315/ 1 of Eedara village, Agiripalli Mandal, Eluru District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural justice and violation of Article 14 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their property without following due process of Law in the interest of justice and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their property adm 133.1 sq.yards in R.S..no.315/1 of Eedara Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Eluru District without following due process of law in the interest of justice pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶29

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 implead the proposed respondent No.5 as Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.21442 of 2023 and pass

¶30

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶31

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 vacate interim order dt.20.09.2023 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2023 in WP.No.21442 of 2023 and dismiss the main Writ Petition and pass

¶32

IA NO: 4 OF 2023

¶33

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

¶34

RC,J W.P.No.21442 of 2023

¶35

3

¶36

to vacate the interim order dated 20-09-2023 in IA No. 1 of 2023 in WP No. 21441 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶38

1.NUVVULA RAM BABU

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

2.N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

RC,J W.P.No.21442 of 2023

¶44

4

¶45

ORDER

¶46

This writ petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitones from their property admeasuring 133.1 Sq.yards in R.S.No.315/1 of Eedara Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Eluru District without following due process of law.

¶47

Heard Nuvvula Ram Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, and Sri B.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

¶48

Sri Nuvvula Ram Babu, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the panchayat authorities on the representation made by respondent no.5 made enquiries and passed a reasoned order stating that there is no panchayat road as alleged by respondent no.5 but for a small pathway, however, the authorities are interfering with the subject property. He would further contend that respondent no.5 who did not challenge the order passed by the panchayat authorities stating that there is no road, cannot have any say. He would further contend that the authorities cannot dispossess the petitioners without following the procedure contemplated under law. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶49

RC,J W.P.No.21442 of 2023

¶50

5

¶51

Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, on counter and by placing the written instructions of the Panchayat Secretary, Edara Gram Panchayat, dated 17.12.2025 on record, would contend that there is no proposal for laying C.C. road in the subject site and the authorities had never threatened the petitioners that they would dispossess them from the subject property. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

Sri B.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 would contend that the petitioners by encroaching panchayat road made constructions and they are liable to be removed. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

¶53

In view of the written instructions dated 17.12.2025, since the panchayat authorities have no proposal for laying road in the subject site and as the authorities had never tried to dispossess the petitioners, nothing remains for adjudication in the writ petition, the same is liable to be closed.

¶54

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as the respondent no.5 on whose complaint the authorities have enquired into the matter and passed a reasoned order stating that there is no panchayat road in the subject site except for a small pathway, did not challenge the said order, he cannot have any say in the subject matter.

¶55

RC,J W.P.No.21442 of 2023

¶56

6

¶57