Darla Venkamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010109762026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3329]

¶5

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6176/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

DARLA VENKAMMA, W/O. LATE SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, JAMMIPALEM VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶10

DARLA CHANDRA MOHAN, S/O. SUBBAIAH LATE. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, JAMMIPALEM VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶11

DARLA RAJESWARI, D/O. SUBBAIAH LATE. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. CHANDRASEKHARAPURAM, BODDUVARIALEM VILLAGE, KONDAVALURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶12

DARLA RAVI, S/O. LATE SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, JAMMIPALEM VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶13

DARLA MADHUSUDHANA RAO, S/O. LATE SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, JAMMIPALEM VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶14

DARLA SULOCHANA, D/O. LATE SUBBAIAH, W/O. SUNEEL GERA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.23-4-132, PATHA KALUVA KATTA, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, MUTHYALAPALEM VILLAGE, NELLORE CITY.

¶15

DARLA DAYAKAR, S/O. LATE SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, JAMMIPALEM VILLAGE KOVUR MANDAL,

¶16

2

¶17

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶18

...PETITIONER(S)

¶19

AND

¶20

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,-522241 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶21

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE.524001

¶22

INAMADUGU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, INAMADUGU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524137

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 534350

¶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 topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings dt.09.02.2026 with respect to land of an extent 30 ankanams in Sy.No.657, 658, situated at Jammipalem village. Inamadugu Grampanchayat, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District belong to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, discriminatory, violation of Rules in G.O.Ms.No.188, dt.21.07.2011 and in violation of provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land of an extent 30 ankanams in Sy.No.657, 658, situated at Jammipalem village, Inamadugu Grampanchayat, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, by set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dt.09.02.2026 and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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

¶28

3

¶29

may be pleased to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land of an extent 30 ankanams in Sy.No.657, 658, situated at Jammipalem village, Inamadugu Grampanchayat, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, by suspending the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dt.09.02.2026, pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶31

1.C SUBODH

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶34

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

4

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO:6176 OF 2026

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶41

India seeking following relief:

¶42

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing proceedings dt.09.02.2026 with respect to land of an extent 30 ankanams in Sy.No.657, 658 situated at Jammipalem village, Inamadugu Grampanchayat, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District belong to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, discriminatory, violation of Rules in G.O.Ms.No.188, dt.21.07.2011 and in violation of provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land of an extent 30 ankanams in Sy.Nos.657, 658 situated at Jammipalem village, Inamadugu Grampanchayat, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by setting aside the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dt.09.02.2026 and pass such other order or orders….”

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat for the respondents.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the vacant site admeasuring to an extent

¶45

5

¶46

30 ankanams in Sy.Nos.657, 658 situated at Jammipalem village, Inamadugu Grampanchayat, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District having acquired the same out of the partition of the joint family property. After such partition, the petitioners have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, to the surprise of the petitioners, respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat issued notice dated 09.02.2026 directing the petitioners to remove the dunghills in the encroached area within a period of seven days claiming that the subject property was classified as Gramakantam and vested with the Gram Panchayat, classifying the petitioners as encroachers and sought for eviction as per Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011 and as per the Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 is arbitrary, erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Rule 4 of the Rules, 2011 contemplates that before directing the petitioners for eviction, the petitioners should be issued notices calling for explanation and after providing an opportunity of hearing to them, the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent No.3 is under obligation to pass a speaking order. After passing of such speaking order, the respondents are entitled to proceed further for eviction of the any alleged encroacher from the property of the respondent No.3/ Gram Panchayat. But in the instant case, the respondents straight away issued impugned notice dated 09.02.2026. He further submits that even though the said impugned notice was named as notice, it appears in

¶48

6

¶49

all respects as an order which was passed by the executive authority without adhering to procedure which is contrary to the Rule 4 of the Rules, 2011. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

¶50

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Gram Panchayat submits that the subject site is classified as Gramakantam land. He further submits that as per the proceedings of the respondent No.4 herein dated 15.10.2025, where the respondent No.4 instructed the respondent No.3/Gram Panchayat to take appropriate action for removal of encroachments since the subject land is a Gramakantam land vested with the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to the said proceedings only, the Gram Panchayat has initiated action and issued the subject notice. He further submits that since the respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat not followed the procedure as per Rule 4 of Rules, 2011. In compliance of the same, let the impugned notice be treated as a show-cause notice. He further submits that once both the parties agreed to treat the impugned notice as a show-cause notice, the petitioners herein may be directed to submit their explanations. After such submission, the respondent/ gram panchayat will follow due procedure as contemplated under the Rules, 2011.

¶51

Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the notice dated 09.02.2026, it appears that even though the impugned notice is named as notice, it is in the form of an order straightaway directing the petitioners to evict the subject property within a

¶52

7

¶53

period of seven (07) days, otherwise, the respondent No.3/ gram panchayat will take steps for eviction of the same as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 2011. It is appropriate for more understanding the Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 is extracted hereunder:

¶54

“4. EVICTION OF ENCROACHMENTS:

¶55

(i) Where it is brought to the notice that any property of the Panchayat is under occupation of any persons the Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) shall serve a notice to the party concerned and give a brief hearing before proceeding for eviction.

¶56

(ii) Suitable orders shall be passed by the Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) before actual eviction takes place.

¶57

(iii) The Divisional Panchayat Officer will conduct a monthly review of these cases for protecting Gram Panchayat properties in his jurisdiction through monitoring the process of eviction. He will also give periodical reports to District Panchayat Officer, who will review the cases once in two months.

¶58

(iv) The Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) may take necessary assistance from the police as per section 139 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

¶59

(v) The evicted property of the Gram Panchayat shall be protected by making fencing or by constructing a compound wall depending on the value of the property and by displaying a notice board.

¶60

(vi) A permanent register on encroachment of Panchayat properties shall be maintained in all Gram Panchayats and the

¶61

8

¶62

same will be validated in the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat meetings at least twice in a year.

¶63

(vii) Aggrieved parties may file representations to the Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) concerned by marking a copy to the Divisional Panchayat Officer.

¶64

(viii) The petitions filed by the aggrieved parties will be monitored and disposed of by the Divisional Panchayat Officer/ District Panchayat Officer.”

¶65

On perusal of the Rule 4 of the Rules, 2011 it appears that the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat shall follow due procedure as contemplated. But admittedly, the impugned notice issued by the Gram Panchayat is contrary to the procedure of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2011. In view of the deviation of the provisions as contemplated under Rule 4, of the Rules, 2011 and as contended by the counsel for the respondents, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioners to treat the impugned notice dated 09.02.2026 as show cause notice and submit a detailed explanation within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receipt of such explanations, the respondent No.3/ Gram Panchayat shall consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as Ms.Bathala Sujatha, who is also claiming as a stake holder and other stake holders, if any, and pass a speaking order. After passing a speaking order, the respondent No.3 is entitled to proceed further as per the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayath (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011. Till completion of the entire

¶66

9

¶67

exercise, the respondents are directed not to interfere and not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land.

¶68