S Venkataramana Vs the State of Ap

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Velagapudi village Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi Mandal,Guntur District

¶27

The District Collector, Chittoor

¶28

The Sub Collector Madanapalle, chittoor district

¶29

The Tahsildar, Vayalpad Mandal, Chittoor District 5. District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor 6. Divisional Panchyat Officer, Madanapalle chittoor^district

¶30

The Gram Panchayat, of Chintaparthi village Vayalpad mandal, Chittoor district reptd by its Executive Officer

¶31

The Sub Inspector of Police, Chintaparthi P.S. Chintaparthi village, Vayalpad mandal chittoor district.

¶32

K Varun Kumar Reddy, s/o K.Rami Reddy age 26 years 8/79, DSP bunglow street,Chintaparthi post village, Vayalpad mandal Chittoor district

¶33

K Rami Reddy, s/o K.Vasudeva Reddy age 65 years 8/79, DSP bunglow street,Chintaparthi post village, Vayalpad mandal Chittoor district

¶34

K Subramanyam Reddy, s/o K.Vasudeva Reddy age 52 years 0pp. NLF School, SBI colony, Madanapalle town, Chittoor^district

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

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 order, direction, or a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 7 in not taking any legal action against the Respondents 9 to 11 herein who are constructing a house in their land in sy.no. 168/2A in DSP Bungalow street of Chintaparthi village of Vayalpad Mandal of chittoor district without permission or obtaining any approved or sanctioned plan from the gram panchayat Chintaparthi village, by occupying

¶37

the public road/DSP Bunglow Street, of Chintaparthi Village of Chittoor district and also digging trenches in the said public road high handedly with the support of the SI of Police/R-8 herein as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially direct the respondents 9 to 11 not to encroach grab, and dig trenches and not to make any further constructions in the public road i.e., DSP Bunglow Road of Chintaparthi village of Chittoor District by further directing not to construct any house in the land in sy.no.168/2A in DSP Bungalow street of Chintaparthi village of Vayalpad Mandal of chittoor district without any permission, without any sanctioned plan etc., from the panchayat authorities and to direct the authorities to remove all illegal constructions of the house and illegal encroachments made by the respondents 9 to 11 into the public road in the DSP bunglow street.

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶39

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 be pleased to direct the respondents 9 to 11 not to encroach, grab, and dig trenches and not to make any constructions in the public road i.e., DSP Bunglow Road of Chintaparthi village of Chittoor District and also to further direct the panchayat authorities to take action as per law against the Respondents 9 to 11 who are building a house without any permission,without any sanctioned plan in the DSP Bunglow street.

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S S BHATT

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI M SUDHIR (SC FOR MPP ZPP) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 5 & 6: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶42

RURAL DEV

¶43

The Court made the following order:

1

APHC010085482019

V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶48

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶49

PRESENT

¶50

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO: 3871/2019

¶52

Between:

¶53

S VENKATARAMANA, S/0 SREENIVASULU AGE 35 YEARS, 8/86-A DSP BUNGLOW STREET RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶54

GADDAM LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/0 VENKATASWAMI AGE 50 YEARS, 9/282, R.S.ROAD, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶55

K.MAHESH, S/0 SUBBARAYUDU AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, 9/265,R.S.ROAD, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶56

K.RAMANA,, S/0 GANGANNA AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS 8/81, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶57

SOURAM SREENIVASULU, S/0 SREERAMULU AGE 43 YEARS, 8/80, DSP BANGLOW STREET, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL

-i'

2

CHITTOOR DISTRICT

P.KANTHARAJU, S/0 PANDURANGAIAH AGE 50 YEARS D.NO.8/40 BAZAR STREET, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE. VAYALPAD MANDAL . CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶62

P. SWARNALATHA, W/0 PANDURANGAIAH AGE 45 YEARS D.NO. 8/20 BAZAR STREET, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶63

K.CHANDRASEKARACHARI, S/0 NAGAPPA ACHARI AGE 46 YEARS, 8/88 DSP BUNGLOW STREET, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶64

S.MANI, S/0 S.ESWARIAH AGE 38 YEARS, D.NO.8/82 DSP BUNGLOW ROAD, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶65

10.S.VENKATARAMANA, S/0 S.SREERAMULU AGE 34 YEARS, D.NO.8/83, DSP BUNGLOW ROAD, RESIDENTS OF CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶66

...PETITIONER(S)

¶67

AND

¶68

THE STATE OF AP, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶69

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR

¶70

THE SUB COLLECTOR MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶71

3

¶72

THE TAHSILDAR, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶73

DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, CHITTOOR

¶74

DIVISIONAL PANCHYAT OFFICER, MADANAPALLE CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶75

THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, OF CHINTAPARTHI VILLAGE VAYALPAD MANDAL

¶76

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINTAPARTHI P.S. CHINTAPARTHI VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶77

K VARUN KUMAR REDDY, S/0 K.RAMI REDDY AGE 26 YEARS 8/79, DSP BUNGLOW STREET,CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 10.K RAMI REDDY, S/0 K.VASUDEVA REDDY AGE 65 YEARS 8/79, DSP BUNGLOW STREET,CHINTAPARTHI POST VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 11 .K SUBRAMANYAM REDDY, S/O K.VASUDEVA REDDY AGE 52 YEARS OPP. NLF SCHOOL, SBI COLONY, MADANAPALLE TOWN, CHITTOOR 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 to issue an order, direction,^orawritof mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 7 in not taking any legal action against the Respondents 9 to¹¹ herein who are constructing a house in their land in sy.no.168/2A in DSP Bungalow street of Chintaparthi village of Vayalpad Mandal of chittoor district without permission or obtaining any approved or sanctioned plan from the gram panchayat Chintaparthi village, by occupying the public road/DSP Bunglow Street, of Chintaparthi

¶78

;4:

¶79

Village of Chittoor district and also digging trenches in the said public road high handedly with the support of the SI of Police/R-8^hereinas illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially^directthe respondents 9 to 11 not to encroach, grab, and dig^{trenchesandnot} to make any further constructions in the public road i.e., DSP Bunglow Road of Chintaparthi village of Chittoor District by further directing not to construct any house in the land in sy.no. 168/2A in DSP Bungalow street of Chintaparthi village of Vayalpad^Mandalof chittoor district without any permission,without any sanctioned plan etc.,from the panchayat authorities and to direct the^authorities to remove all illegal constructions of the house and illegal encroachmentsmade by the respondents 9 to 11 into the public road in the DSP bunglow street.

¶80

5

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶82

WRIT PETITION NO: 3871/2019

¶83

This Court made the following

¶84

ORDER:

¶85

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondents and perused the material placed on record.

¶86

The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.s1 to 7 are not taking any legal action against the respondent^Nos.9to 11 who are constructing a house in their land in Sy.No.168/2A in DSP Bungalow street of Chintaparthi Village of Vayalpad Mandal of Chittoor District without there being any permission or sanctioned plan from the 7*^ respondent - Gram Panchayat is contrary^tolaw. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the unofficial Respondent Nos.9 to 11 are trying to make construction not only the land held by them to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents but by occupying road margin / public road of the Gram Panchayat Chintaparthi Village, for which the petitioners approached official respondents by submitting representation on 12.11.2018 for appropriate action against illegal construction of the unofficial respondents^and also encroaching the land of the road margin by the unofficial

¶87

6

¶88

respondents. Even after receipt of the representation,^respondent authorities neither considered the representation nor^stoppedthe illegal construction of the unofficial respondents. Learned counsel for the 7*^ respondent -Gram the petitioners further submits that Panchayat issued notices dated 13.11.2018 and also^23.02.2019 stating that the 9 respondent herein directed to submit link documents for consideration of the application for^{approval/sanction} plan to the respondents and also directed to stop the^{constructiontill} conducting survey and issuance of sanction plan. The^petitioners also submitted action taken report of the Mandal Engineering^Officer, wherein it is stated that one Sri K. Chinnarami Reddy^making construction by encroaching one feet for one column^{footingallother} column and laid footing work adjacent to CC road, He further submits that even though notices were issued by the Gram Panchayat, no action was initiated. Hence the writ^petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for^Revenue appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed counter-affidavit on

¶89

behalf of Respondent No.4, wherein it is stated as^under.

¶90

In reply to Paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit, it is^{submittedthattheother} purchasers of the above land have raised residential houses in the above site and the mother of the respondents 10 & 11^{andgrandmother} of the 9'^ respondent has also raised a residential^{houseinaportionof} the land purchased by them. As the above land is a^{purchasedlandin} an open auction conducted by the District Board. The purchasers^yield

¶91

7

¶92

unfettered rights over the same and Gram Panchayat^hasnopowerto lay a road in the land purchased through auction. The widow of the purchaser is at liberty to execute a Will in favour^{ofhergrandson(9} respondent) over the above property and petitioner^{cannotraiseany} objection in the matter.

¶93

Soon after the execution of the impugned Will the 9'*’^respondent has pulled down his old structure and intended to raise a new structure in the area purchased by his grandfather in an auction^{conductedbythe} District Board. also submit that the petitioners^{havenotraisedany} objection over the houses constructed by the other^{purchasersandfiled} this petition before this Hon’ble High Court at a time^when the 9 respondent started construction on unsustainable grounds. The other contentions raised by the petitioner in these paras^{areallbaselessand} untenable and aimed at distorting the attention of this Hon'ble^High Court.

¶94

4 In reply to Paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit, it is^{submittedthatthe} contention of the petitioners that the disputed property is a Government land and public property is far from true and baseless. The Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction over the same. It is^{apurchasedland,} auction conducted by the District Board. The purchased in an open grandfather of the 9*' respondent and father of the 10 and 11* consideration of Rs.3,600/- in respondents has purchased the same for a the year 1959. There is no illegality or impropriety in the matter and as such the action of the respondents in taking up construction over the disputed site cannot be construed as illegal and impermissible and Government cannot be expected to keep them in fetters^{andtorestrain} them. As there is no gravity in the complaint of the petitioners no further action was contemplated in the matter, The impugned construction cannot be termed as illegal and the Gram^{Panchayatisnot} competent to meddle or tinker with the rights of the^{respondents9to11} in the matter. 1 further submit that as the land was^{vacantongroundfor} a long period, the villagers used to make ingress and egress^throughthe above land and mere usage of the land as a Rastha cannot take awaythe rights of the respondents 9 to 11”

¶95

Respondent No.10 filed counter wherein it is stated

¶96

as

¶97

under;

¶98

“4 I submit that the other purchasers of the above^{landhaveraised} residential houses in the above site and the mother of the respondents 10 & 11 and grand grandmother of the 9 respondent have also raised a residential house in a portion of the land

¶99

::8::

¶100

purchased by them. The above land is a purchased land in an open auction conducted by the District Board. The purchasers yield unfettered rights over the same and Gram Panchayat has no power to lay a road in the land purchased through auction. The widow of the purchaser is at liberty to execute a Will in favour of her grandson (9*'’ respondent) over the above property and petitioners cannot raise any objection in the matter. Soon after the execution of the impugned Will, the 9 respondent pulled down his old structure and took building permission from respondent No.7 on date 25.09.2018, intended to raise a new structure in the area purchased by his grandfather in an auction conducted by the District Board. I also submit that the petitioners have not raised any objection or not raised any little finger of dissent over the houses constructed by the other purchasers. The petitioner suppressed all the said facts and filed this petition before this Hon’ble High Court at a time when the 9*^ respondent started construction on unsustainable grounds. The other contentions raised by the petitioner in these paras are all baseless and untenable and aimed at distorting the attention of this Hon’ble High Court. 5. I respectfully submit that the contention of the petitioners that the disputed property is Government land and public property^isfarfrom true and baseless. The Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction over the same. It is a purchased land, purchased in an open auction conducted by the District Board. The grandfather of the 9'" respondent and father of the 10 and 11 respodnents had purchased the same for a consideration of-Rs.S.eoO/- in the year 1959. There is no illegality or impropriety in the matter and as such the action of the respondents in taking up construction over the disputed site cannot be construed as illegal and impermissible and the Government cannot be expected to keep them in fetters and to restrain them ”

¶101

th On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for 7 respondent submitted written instructions dated 05.08.2025 furnished by 7th respondent wherein it is stated as under;

¶102

It is humbly submitted that no construction has been till date i ::n the land in Sy.No.168/2A of Chinthaparthi Village. The land is vacant and no construction has been raised by the Respondent Nos.9 to 11. 1 am enclosing photographs taken today i.e., 05.08.2025 at 09.59AM for kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶103

Considering the submissions made by counsel representing^all parties and perusal of record placed before this Court as well as written instructions of the 7^^ respondent, it is an admitted fact that the

¶104

9

¶105

grand-father of the 9'^ respondent and father of unofficial^respondent Nos. 10 and 11 acquired an extent of Ac.0.06 cents^{inapublicauction} conducted by the District Board through a registered sale deed No.2259/1959, dated 07.07.1959 and the same was also admitted by the petitioners at Para-2 of his affidavit and got^{constructedahouse} thereon, but due to dilapidated condition respondent^Nos.9to11are intended to make a new construction and submitted building application for construction and initiated steps for^{constructionofthe} same. Whereas, upon, perusal of the counter-affidavit^{filedbythe4th} respondent, it is clearly and categorically stated^{thatthesubjectland,} where the construction is being carried out by the unofficial respondents, is private land and does not fall under^{theclassification} of 'Rasta' or ‘public road’. It is further reiterated^{thatthegrand-father} and father of the unofficial respondent Nos.9 to 11 acquired the subject land in the year 1959 itself and later he executed^aWill in favour of the unofficial respondents. As such they^{areentitledto} make further construction as per the sanction plan approved bythe^{7^^} respondent - Gram Panchayat. 7. As contended by learned counsel for unofficial respondents^the unofficial respondents granted due permission for construction on 25.09.2018 by the 7^ respondent - Gram Panchayat,^assuchthe

¶106

unofficial respondents are entitled to make further construction as per the sanctioned plan issued by the 7*" respondent. 8. In view of fact the unofficial respondents are granted permission and even as admitted by the petitioners, the subject land was acquired by the unofficial respondents through a sale deed in the year 1959 itself. The allegation of the petitioners that the respondents are proceeding, without there being any permission by occupying the road of the Gram Panchayat is far from facts as stated above. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent Nos.9 to 11 are proceeding with the construction without there being any valid permission and by encroaching road margin is not proved by way of any specific evidence but he relied upon the action taken report of the Mandal Engineering Officer, dated 17.11.2018 to whom the same was submitted not indicated anywhere and the name mentioned in the report is K. Chinnarami Reddy, who is not made as a party respondent herein. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the unofficial respondents . are making construction by occupying the road is contrary^tothefacts as stated by the respondents in their counters as extracted above

¶107

The allegations made by the petitioners are only invented and construction at all still the far from the truth. Even today there is^no entire land is vacant land.

¶108

1. As submitted by learned Standing Counsel for respondent Gram Panchayat, as of now there is no construction^atthesubject still vacant land as alleged by the petitioners and the subject land is as it is.

¶109

In view of the facts as stated above, the claim of^{thepetitioners} that the respondents are proceedings without there being any permission by occupying pubiic road is contrary to the facts and of the unofficial respondents. intends to stall the construction However, the permission which was granted by the 7 respondent on 25.09.2018 is not valid to proceed the construction as of now. As^per Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and buiiding)' Rules 2002, any permission granted by the Gram Panchayat is valid for a period of one year only, if^{therespondents} construction they should obtain permission are intend to make any Which was afresh or they should get renewal to the permission already granted on 25.09.2018

¶110