Nimmagadda Rama Krishna Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Nimmagadda Rama Krishna Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to Respondent No.2 (Mulapadu Grama Panchayat) to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two (2) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not initiating any action on the Petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2025 against the alleged unauthorised construction by Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in Sy.No 35/13C (Ac. 0.27 Cents) is arbitrary and illegal, warranting a Writ of Mandamus to prevent further construction and remove the illegal structures. +1 more

Court's answer

The instructions furnished on behalf of Respondent No.2 disclosed that the Grama Panchayat had not accorded permission for any construction, but it was nowhere stated whether any orders had been passed on the Petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2025.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 15.10.2025 made by the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; there shall be no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 14.11.2025 by Smt Justice V. Sujatha (single Judge). Intra-family dispute over joint ancestral land: the Petitioner, in possession of Ac. 0.27 cents in Sy.No 35/13C (Mulapadu, NTR District), complained that his brothers/co-sharers (Respondent Nos. 4-6) were making unauthorised construction without sanction of the Mulapadu Grama Panchayat and that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had failed to act on his representation dated 15.10.2025. Instructions dated 14.11.2025 produced by the Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 confirmed that the Grama Panchayat had accorded no permission for any construction but were silent on the representation. Without entering the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing Respondent No.2 to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two (2) weeks; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications (including I.A. No. 1 of 2025 u/S 151 CPC) closed.

APHC010601342025

[3333]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 31413/2025

Between:

NIMMAGADDA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O- SEETA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O- D NO- 2-97, MULAPADU, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 521185

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE MULAPADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MULAPADU, NTR DISTRICT.

THE TAHSILDAR, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, MULAPADU.

NIMMAGADDA RAJESH, S/O- SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/0- MULAPADU, NTR DISTRICT.

NIMMAGADDA VENKATA NAGA RAJU, S/O- VENKATA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O- MULAPADU NTR DISTRICT.

NALLURI VAMSI KRISHNA, S/O- MADHU BABU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O- GUNTUPALLI, NTR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toPleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in

2

the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in not initiating any action by preventing the Respondent No. 4 to 6 from making further illegal construction even in spite of submitting the representation dated 15-10-2025 by the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to prevent the Respondent No. 4 to 6 from making illegal construction in Sy.No 35/13C to the extent Ac. 0.27 Cents and remove the illegal structures radsed by the Respondents No. 4 to 6 in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to prevent the Respondent No.4 to 6 from making further construction in Sy.No 35/13C to the extent Ac. 0.27 Cents pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.BOGGAVARAPU RAHUL

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3

The Court made the following ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in not initiating any action by preventing the Respondent No. 4 to 6 from making further illegal construction even in spite of submitting the representation dated 15-10-2025 by the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to prevent the Respondent No. 4 to 6 from making illegal construction in Sy.No 35/13C to the extent Ac. 0.27 Cents and remove the illegal structures raised by the Respondents No. 4 to 6 in the interest of justice.….”

The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.27 cents of land

in Sy.No.35/13C. Although the ancestral properties were partitioned, the subject land was retained as joint property and has been enjoyed by all the brothers. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that respondent Nos.4 to 6 who are the brothers have undertaken to construct an unauthorized construction in an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.35/13C without any sanction from the 2^nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.10.2025 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, requesting to take appropriate action as against the respondent Nos.4 to 6. As no action has been initiated against the respondent Nos.4 to 6, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard Sri V.Sai Sri Krishna, representing Sri B.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

4

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2 furnished a copy of instructions dated 14.11.2025, from the Panchayat Secretary, Grama Panchayat, Mulapadu, wherein it is stated that the Grama Panchayat has not accorded any permission to anybody to make any constructions. However, it is nowhere stated as to whether any orders have been passed on the representation dated 15.10.2025 made by the petitioner.

In view of the same, without going into the merits, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 15.10.2025 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand

closed.

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

MH 14.11.2025

5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

21

WRIT PETITION NO: 31413/2025

14.11.2025 MH