SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
P.Rudraiah Naidu, S/O Late Venkatamuni Naidu - Appellant 
Versus 
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Principal Secretary – Respondent 
WRIT PETITION NO: 5738 of 2020
Decided on : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Meka Rahul Chowdary
For the Respondent: RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) Mattegunta.Sudhir, Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram
Panchayats

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

1. The petitioners, six in number, filed the above writ petition, assailing the G.O.Ms.No.241, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department, dated 17.01.2020, merging Charvaganipalle Gram Panchayat into Penumuru Gram Panchayat.

2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioners are the residents of Penumuru Gram Panchayat. The said Penumuru Gram Panchayat was divided into 3 revenue divisions i.e. Penumuru, Ramakrishnapuram and Chipparapalli. Penumuru village has a population of 6,000 people and has more than 3,200 voters. Charvaganipalle village is located at a distance of 3.5 KMs from Penumuru village. The villagers of Charvaganipalle and Penumuru were not aware of the merging proposal till the G.O. impugned was issued.

b) The MPDO, Penumuru and the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor, submitted reports vide Roc.No.B/36/2019 dated 10.01.2020 and Roc.No.2672/2019/B1(Pts), dated 11.01.2020, respectively, that both Gram Panchayats resolved to accept merger. Acting upon the said reports, the 4th respondent forwarded the proposals to the Government and thereafter the 1st respondent issued the G.O. impugned. The petitioners submitted representations to the respondents 2 and 4 on 03.12.2019 and 21.12.2019, opposed to the proposal. The respondents also failed to adhere to the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.542, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Parts IV), dated 03.12.2007. The Special Officer, Penumuru Gram Panchayat, submitted a report regarding the conduct of Gram Sabha; however, no Gram Sabha was conducted properly.

3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the Gram Panchayat of Charvaganipalle in its resolution No.26, dated 16.11.2019, agreed for the merger of Charvaganipalle Gram Panchayat into Penumuru Gram Panchayat. The MPDO, Penumuru Mandal submitted proposals vide Lr.Roc.No.B/36/2019, dated 16.11.2019. The District Collector, Chittoor, submitted proposals to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development with a request to consider the proposals vide Lr.Roc.No.2445/2019-B1(Pts), dated 24.12.2019. After considering the proposals, the 4th respondent-Commissioner issued show cause notices to both the Gram Panchayats calling for objections to the proposed merger vide No.1040030/CPR&RD/D1/2019-18, dated 08.01.2020. b) Grama Sabhas were conducted in both the Gram Panchayats.

In the Gram Sabha held on 10.01.2020 at Penumuru Gram Panchayat, the villagers had agreed to the proposed merger of Charvaganipalle into Penumuru Gram Panchayat. In the Grama Sabha held on 10.01.2020 at Charvaganipalle, the villagers had agreed to the proposed merger of Charvaganipalle Gram Panchayat into Penumuru Gram Panchayat. The MPDO, Penumuru Mandal, had submitted both the Gram Sabha resolutions with a request to take further action.

c) Considering the Gram Sabha resolutions and proposals of the District Collector, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.241, dated 17.01.2020, de-notifying Charvaganipalle Gram Panchayat and merging the same into Penumuru Gram Panchayat. The procedure mandated in the G.O.Ms.No.542 dated 03.12.2007 was adhered to.

4. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent.

5. Heard Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 4 and Ms.Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, reiterated the contentions as per their averments in the writ affidavit and counter-affidavits.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the procedure mandated under G.O.Ms.No.542, dated 03.12.2007, was not adhered to. The Grama Sabha was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top