Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J.Malyadri Naidu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 8 December, 2023
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1249 of 2025
J. Malyadri Naidu, S/o. Pullaiah Naidu,
Aged 54 years, R/o.D.No.3-5-137,
Rajagopalapuram, Naidupeta Village,
Tirupati District.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and seven others.
...nespondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. V. Vinod K Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj and Rural
Development
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Gajjala Venkata Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel
Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to6 : Government Pleader for
Home
Counsel for respondent No.7 : Sri Muni Reddy Peruru,
learned Standing Counsel.
Counsel for respondent No.8 : None
HOJ & RRR, J
W.A.No.1249 of 2023
Dt.:08.12.20235
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order, dated 18.10.2023, passed in W.P. No.27534 of
20285.
2. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
there is a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant
against respondent No.8 in regard to property over which it is
alleged by the appellant that the said respondent No.8 is raising
construction without seeking appropriate building permission from
the Gram Panchayat.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant herein had
sought a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Gram
Panchayat directing them to stop the illegal construction carried
out by respondent No.8 on account of the fact that building
permission had not been obtained. The writ petition has been
dismissed by virtue of judgment and order impugned primarily on
the ground that there was a civil suit pending before a civil Court
for declaration and title and that having failed to obtain any
injunction against the private respondent No.8 in the civil suit, the
HOJ & RRR, J
petitioner/appellant herein was not entitled to claim any such relief
in the writ petition.
4. From the record, it appears that a complaint had been filed by
the appellant herein with the Gram Panchayat as early as in the
month of October, 2023, which fact is not denied by learned counsel
appearing for the Gram Panchayat. It is also stated by the learned
counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat that ordinarily, when a
complaint is received, it is looked into and in case the construction
of the building is found to be without the permission of the Gram
Panchayat, then a show cause notice is issued and consequential
action taken. In the present case, it is admitted by the learned
counsel for the Gram Panchayat that no show cause notice has been
issued yet.
5. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that a direction in the
nature of a mandamus to the Gram Panchayat was innocuous
inasmuch as the Gram Panchayat is under a statutory obligation to
act upon the complaint with regard to the unauthorised
construction being raised contrary to the Rules and Regulations
applicable for such constructions in a Gram Panchayat.
6. Considering the limited nature of the prayer, we direct the
Gram Panchayat to take an appropriate decision based upon the
HOJ & RRR, J
complaint filed by the appellant herein within three (3) weeks from
today after affording to the private respondent No.8 an opportunity
of being heard.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
AMD
HOJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Dt:08.12.2025
AMD
