Kadiyala Nalla Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 522237

¶13

THE GODASALAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, D-HIREHAL MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 515872

¶14

THE HEAD MASTER, ZIILA PARISHAD HIGH SCHOOL, GODASALAPALLI VILLAGE, D-HIREHAL MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 or order more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the high-handed action of the 2nd respondent in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his house site to an extent of 80 Sq. Yds. in Sy. No. 308, Godasalapalli

¶17

2

¶18

Village, D-Hirehal Mandal, Anantapuram District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 direct the 2nd not to evict the petitioner from his house site to an extent of 80 Sq. Yds. in Sy. No. 308, Godasalapalli Village, D-Hirehal Mandal, Anantapuram District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO:6335 OF 2026

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶31

“to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the highhanded action of the 2^nd respondent in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his house site to an extent of 80 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.308, Godasalapalli Village, D-Hirehal Mandal, Anantapuram District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders….”

¶32

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

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the house site to an extent of 80 Sq.Yds situated in Sy.No.308, Godasalapalli Village, D-Hirehal Mandal, Anantapuram District having acquired the same by way of inheritance. Since the date of acquisition, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, pursuant to the complaint given by the respondent No.3, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated NIL alleging that the petitioner occupied the vacant site of the school and erected black stone fencing around the site and directed the petitioner to remove the stones within

¶34

4

¶35

a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, legal action will be taken by the Gram Panchayat for the removal of the encroachments. In response to the said notice, the petitioner herein submitted a detailed explanation dated 24.02.2026 to the 2^nd respondent. Even after receipt of the said explanation, the respondents neither considered and dropped the notice nor passed any orders. Hence, the writ petition.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Gram Panchayat submits that since the petitioner herein submitted an explanation dated 24.02.2026 to the notice dated nil issued by respondent No.2, the respondents will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶37

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that without going into the merits of the case, the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the explanation dated 24.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other stake holders, if any, and pass a speaking order. After passing a speaking order, the respondent authorities are entitled to proceed further in accordance with law. Till the date

¶38

of speaking order, the respondents are directed not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.

¶39

5

¶40