Ramadeni Pullamma Vs the State of Ap

MANDAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERTAHSILDAR, MACHILIPATNAM NORTH MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 14.08.2025 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A. NO.3 OF 2025.

¶17

THE CHAIRMAN, MACHILIPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM

¶18

NANDYALA DINESH, S/O NANDYALA SURESH BABU AGEDMAJOR, R/O D.NO.1/55, POTUMEEDA VILLAGE KODUR MANDAL, KRISHNA

¶19

2

¶20

DISTRICT

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction of the respondents in not preventing illegal usage of land for commercial purposes abutting our land situated in Sy.No.438/5A, 438/5B1 admeasuring Ac.1.00, Sy.No.437/2 4, Sy.No.438/6 admeasuring Ac.0.97 cents, situated in Chittipalem, Arisepalli Gram Panchayat, Machilipatnam North Mandal, despite complaint dated 07.01.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, failure to exercise power, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith take action on the illegal constructions and removal of obstructions to the waste water drains and roads by making sufficient setbacks ,ingress and agress , space for the usage of agriculture activities of the petitioner, and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 3rd respondent for stay all the development activities taken by the Respondent no.6, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶26

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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 01-04-2025 in W.P. No. 8112 of 2025 and pass

¶27

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶28

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 permit the Petitioners to amend the Cause title by arraying 4rt Respondent Mandal Executive Offieer (Tahsildar), Machilipatnam North Mandal, Krishna District being the proper and answering respondent to the above writ Petition and pass

¶29

IA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶30

3

¶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 grant Leave to the Respondent No.5 to file the Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.8112 of 2025 and pass

¶32

IA NO: 5 OF 2025

¶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 to vacate the interim order dated 01.04.2025 in WP.No.8112 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶35

1.CH VEDAVANI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶38

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶39

3.Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra

¶40

4.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

¶41

5.B V ANJANEYULU

¶42

4

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

Declaring the inaction of the respondents in not preventing the illegal usage of land for commercial purposes abutting the petitioners’ land situated in Sy.No.438/5A, 438/5B1 admeasuring Ac.1.00 cent, Sy.No.437/2 & 4 and Sy.No.438/6 admeasuring Ac.0.97 cents, situated at Chittipalem Village, Arisepalli Gram Panchayat, Machilipatnam North Mandal, despite the complaint dated 07.01.2025, the present writ petition is filed.

¶45

Heard Smt. CH.Vedavani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri B.V.Anjanelulu, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.6 and there is no representation for Sri Ganesh Babu, learned Standing counsel for UDA.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the unofficial respondent No.6 is illegally using the land for commercial purposes abutting the petitioners’ land. It is submitted that no conversion from agricultural land to non-agricultural land was obtained and that the tentative layout was rejected by the Urban Development Authority. Though the grievance was raised before the authorities stating that the unofficial respondent No.6 closed the pantabodi and constructed a compound wall, no action has been initiated. As such, prayed to pass the appropriate orders.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.6 on counter submitted that the unofficial respondent No.6 obtained conversion proceedings from the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use in order to form a layout.

¶48

5

¶49

Pursuant thereto, tentative layout approval was granted on 21.03.2025, and the layout was formed in accordance with the said approval. Initially, an order of status quo was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which was subsequently vacated upon an application. The petitioners challenged the same in W.A.No.949 of 2025, wherein the Division Bench, while granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the grant of permission, found no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed the same. Despite such liberty, the petitioners did not challenge the conversion proceedings. Therefore, it is contended that the present writ petition has become infructuous. It is further submitted that final layout approval was also granted on 24.10.2025, which is placed on record after filing of the counter and duly served on the petitioners. In view of the same, nothing remains for adjudication and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

Learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on counter, contended that there exists a pantabodi which has been occupied by the unofficial respondent No.6 and that the authorities intend to take steps in accordance with law. Though liberty was granted by the Division Bench in W.A.No.949 of 2025, admittedly, no steps have been taken by the petitioners. 6 Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.

¶51

The grievance of the petitioners is illegal usage of pantabodi land for commercial purposes by the unofficial respondent No.6 abutting their land. The material on record indicates that a tentative layout plan was granted by

¶52

6

¶53

the Urban Development Authority (respondent No.5) and final layout approval was accorded by the Machilipatnam Urban Development Authority vide proceedings dated 24.10.2025. If the petitioners have any grievance against the said proceedings, they are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority and challenge the same, if so advised. In view of the aforesaid proceedings, there is no element of illegal usage of land for commercial purposes as alleged.

¶54

Insofar as the pantabodi is concerned, the counter filed by the Gram Panchayat categorically stated that the unofficial respondent No.6 has occupied the pantabodi. It is incumbent upon the Gram Panchayat to take steps in accordance with law if the pantabodi is found to have been encroached upon.

¶55

Accordingly, insofar as the pantabodi is concerned, the Gram Panchayat shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if it is found that the pantabodi has been occupied by the unofficial respondent No.6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

_____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶58

Date: 15^th December, 2025 SNI

¶59

7

¶60

181

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI