M BALAJI vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

APHC010386012023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20476/2023 Between: 1.

M BALAJI, S/O.

MUNA SWAMY, AGED 54 YEARS OCC.

AGRICULTURE, R/O.

H.

NO.

1-15, MUDDANAPALLI VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 2.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR.

3.

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR.

4.

THE TAHSILDAR, RAMAKUPPAM MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5.

MUDDANAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS., PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MUDDANAPALLI VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court 2 may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in trying to demolish the house and Cowshed of the petitioner in Sy.

No.362/5 to an extent of about Ac.

1.00 situated Muddanapalli Revenue Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District situated Muddanapalli Village, Ramakuppam Mandalam, Chittoor District without issuing any notice and without obtaining any explanation from the petitioner straight away trying to demolish the petitioner house by the respondents 4 and 5 is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to demolish the petitioner House and cowshed property in Sy.

1. out Ac.

1.00 situated Muddanapalli Revenue Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District the petitioners house property without following due process of law in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct the respondents 4 and 5, not to demolish the petitioner's house property and cowshed in Sy.No.

362/5 to an extent of Ac 1.00, situated at Muddanapalli Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District by the respondents 4 and 5 without following due process of law, pending disposal of the main writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.

K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.

GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 & 5 in trying to demolish the house and cowshed of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.362/5 situated in Muddanapalli Revenue Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, without issuing any notice inviting explanation, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

2.

Heard Smt.J.Anjani, learned counsel representing Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat for the respondents.

Learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat on written instruction of the Panchayat Secretary, Muddanapalle Gram Panchayat, submitted that the petitioner, without obtaining any permission from the Gram Panchayat has made constructions.

However, the authorities would take steps in accordance with law, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to record the said submission and dispose of the writ petition.

5. tition.

5.

Taking their submissions into consideration, as the respondent authorities have an intention to take steps in accordance with law, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counter, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: 4 “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s subject property except under due process of law.” 6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th December, 2025 RKS