Disposed

Buddha Srinivasa Rao v. Anumukonda Praharsh Dhana Syam

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WA/1018/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an intra-court appeal challenging a single judge's order directing demolition of a 100-year-old dilapidated building. The building was demolished on 27 August 2026 after notice. The court held that no further cause of action survived in the appeal, affirmed that demolition does not affect the appellant's property rights in pending civil proceedings (Second Appeal No. 1240 of 2012), and directed the Gram Panchayat to return the appellant's belongings listed in the panchanama.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to collect articles listed in panchanama from 5th respondent Gram Panchayat; demolition order not disturbed; appellant's property rights in pending civil proceedings unaffected.

Buddha Srinivasa Rao Vs Anumukonda Praharsh Dhana… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010450362026

¶2

Bench Sr.No:-28

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3584] AT AMARAVATI

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1018 of 2026

Buddha Srinivasa Rao

...Appellant

Vs.

Anumukonda Praharsh Dhana Syam and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 15th September 2026

¶12

Present:

¶13

Advocate for Appellant: MR. UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. PATHI SIVA PRASAD, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, MR.YARRAGUNTLA.KOTESWARA RAO, Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats *******

¶14

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

¶15

This intra-Court appeal is preferred by appellant, aggrieved by order, dated 13.08.2026, in W.P. No.32050 of 2025, whereby learned Single Judge, while disposing the writ petition, directed demolition of subject building.

¶16

¶17

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1018 of 2026

¶18

2. 1^st respondent herein filed W.P.No.32050 of 2025 with the following

¶19

prayer:

¶20

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents more particularly respondent No 4 and 5 in refusing to demolish the dilapidated building which is more than 100 years old which is Assessment No.2455 in Door No.11-137, Nethikottu Street, Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Eluru District, on a ground that there is civil litigation was pending before the court of law by passing a proceedings vide Lr.No./PRISD Mandavalli 2025, dated 08.09.2025, which is highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the rejection proceedings passed by the 5th respondent vide Lr No /PRISD Mandavalli 2025, dated 08 09 2025, and pass….”

¶21

3. 1^st respondent claims to have acquired subject property under a gift

¶22

from his parents, who in turn purchased the same vide registered sale deed, executed in year 2021 from legal heirs of one Mr.Kantheti Ramaiah. Over the said property, a building of 100 years old was in existence, and as it was in dilapidated condition, both 1^st respondent/writ petitioner as well as villagers made representation, dated 21.07.2025, to the official respondents for demolition. Rejection of such request forced 1^st respondent to prefer the writ petition.

¶23

4. The appellant, who was impleaded during pendency of writ petition, on account of death of his father, 6^th respondent in the writ petition, pleaded that writ petitioner has no right over subject property, on the pretext of showing that building was in dilapidated condition, an attempt is being

¶24

¶25

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1018 of 2026

¶26

made to seek custody of subject property by evicting him, which is not permissible.

¶27

5. The learned Single Judge, after having taken note of aforesaid submissions, also considering that civil litigation pending between the parties, besides considering the report of Deputy Executive Engineer, who assessed the stability of subject building, ordered for demolition. However, insofar as the claim of appellant with regard to civil remedies, the same were left open for him to agitate before appropriate forum.

¶28

6. Heard Mr. V. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for appellant; Mr.Pathi Siva Prasad, learned counsel for 1^st respondent/writ petitioner and Mr.Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 5^th respondent Gram Panchayat.

¶29

7. Learned counsel for appellant contended that under the guise of demolition of building, on the pretext that it is in dilapidated condition, the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner virtually was taking control and possession of the property, which is impermissible, and the method and course adopted is ingenious to circumvent the legal process, otherwise, 1^st respondent, in normal course, should have resorted to.

¶30

8. Learned Standing Counsel for 5^th respondent Gram Panchayat and learned counsel for 1^st respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that after passing of impugned order, the respondents have demolished the building

¶31

¶32

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1018 of 2026

¶33

on 27.08.2026 in the presence of mediators by drawing a panchanama. Further, the articles and belongings stored in the premises were listed out as part of panchanama, and the same are in safe custody with 5^th respondent Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that before undertaking aforesaid exercise, 5^th respondent tried to serve notice on appellant, however, as he was neither residing at subject house nor in the village, an announcement was made in the village on 19.08.2026 through tom-tom, and notices were also affixed on the walls of dilapidated building proposing the demolition. Necessary intimation was given to the office of Tahsildar, MRO, and Station House Officer, Kaikaluru, and thereafter, on 27.08.2026, the building was demolished, proceedings of which were videographed and preserved.

¶34

9. Learned counsel for appellant does not dispute the demolition of building, however, he reiterated the submission that under the guise of demolition, the possession of property has been taken over by 1^st respondent, which is impermissible. Further, learned counsel for appellant also submitted that the articles, which were lying in the subject building, were removed in his absence, which itself shows that appellant was very much in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶35

10. Having considered aforesaid submissions, in particular that the subject building has already been demolished, which was the main relief sought in the writ petition and granted by learned Single Judge, no further

¶36

¶37

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1018 of 2026

¶38

cause of action survives in present appeal. The learned Single Judge, while ordering demolition, has specifically made it clear that the same would in no way affect the right of appellant over subject property, which is subject matter of civil litigation between the parties. Further, it was also noted that the dispute inter se was pending in Second Appeal No.1240 of 2012 before this Court. We are totally in agreement with the view expressed by learned Single Judge. At the cost of repetition, we once again make it clear that mere demolition of building would in no manner affect the rights of appellant in pursuing his remedies qua the subject property either in pending proceedings or in any other proceedings, as may be initiated. We also permit the appellant to collect the articles as listed out in the panchanama, which has been produced before us today and taken on record subject to just exceptions. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant would collect the articles on 25.09.2026. The 5^th respondent, thus, is directed to deliver the articles to the appellant as and when he approaches.

¶39

11 Accordingly, writ appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶40

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

¶41

LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶42

Buddha Srinivasa Rao v. Anumukonda Praharsh Dhana Syam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddha Srinivasa Rao v. Anumukonda Praharsh Dhana Syam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases