##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:61632

APHC010467472021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

[3332]

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 28195/2021

Between:

1. A REPALLY MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, S/O

CHENNAKESAVULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

2. A REPALLY RAMAKRISHNA, S/O CHENNAKESAVULU,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (BOTH PETITIONERS ARE

R/O CUMBAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM

DISTRICT)

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND

RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYATHS,

PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE.

3. T HE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, PRAKASAM

DISTRICT.

2

2025:APHC:61632

4. T HE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,

CUMBUM MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, CUMBAM

MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

5. T HE TAHSILDAR, CUMBUM MANDAL, CUMBAM

PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

6. T HE ASSITANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH

RAJ DEPARTMENT, CUMBUM, PRAKSAM DISTRICT.

7. C UMBAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP., BY ITS,

PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, CUMBAM VILLAGE AND

MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

8. D EVARASETTY BRAHMAIAH, PANCHAYATH

SECRETARY, CUMBUM GRAMA PANCHAYT, CUMBUM

MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

9. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CUMBUM POLICE

STATION, PRAKASAM 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 may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate

Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to

dispossess the petitioners from the open land in

Sy.No.99/2(99/1) near the house No.1/154 to an extent of

Ac.00.12 1/2 cts as per the schedule in registered settlement

deeds No.1114/2008 and 1114/2008 dated 23-04-2008 in the

office of the Sub Registrar, Cumbam, Prakasam District, for

construction of Grama Sachivalayam Building, as arbitrary,

illegal, in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution

of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to make

any constructions and not interfere with the possession and

enjoyment of the open Plot in Sy.No.99/2 (99/1) near the house

No.1/154 to an extent of Ac.00.12 1/2 cts as per the schedule in

3

2025:APHC:61632

registered settlement deeds No.1114/2008 and 1114/2008 dated

23-04-2008 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Cumbam,

Prakasam District, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

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 pleased to direct the

Respondents not to make any constructions and not interfere

with the possession and enjoyment of the open Plot in

Sy.No.99/2(99/1) near the house No.1/154 to an extent of

Ac.00.12 1/2 cts as per the schedule in registered settlement

deeds No.1114/2008 & 1114/2008 dated 23-04-2008 in the office

of the Sub Registrar, Cumbam, Prakasam District, pending

disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

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 To vacate interim order

granted on 30.11.2021 in W.P.No.28195 of 2021 and dismiss the

above writ, petition and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 pleased to vacate the

interim order dated 30.11.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in

W.P.No.28195 of 2021 and to dismiss the instant writ petition and

to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

4

2025:APHC:61632

1. GP FOR HOME

2. GP FOR REVENUE

3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

4. V VINOD K REDDY (SC FOR ZP MPDO GP)

The Court made the following order:

Challenging the action of the respondent authorit