##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:58620

APHC010133382023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(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: 6914/2023 & 12557/2024

W.P.No: 6914/2023:

Between:

B Anthony ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM

PANCHAYAT

2. GP FOR REVENUE

3. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES

4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2025:APHC:58620

APHC010235972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(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: 12557/2024

Between:

K Uligappa and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. PONNADA SREE VYAS

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. M DHANA RAJU

3. K M KRISHNA REDDY

4. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioners in W.P.No.12557 of 2024 is that, the

respondent authorities are allowing the 9^th respondent to construct place of

public worship in open site to an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in Sy.No.470A in

Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Sreedevi Estate, Mandagiri Panchayat, Adoni, Kurnool

District.

2025:APHC:58620

2. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2023 is that, the 5^th

respondent issued impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 directing the petitioner

to remove Church buildings existing in an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in

L.P.No.66/89 in Sy.No.470A situated in Mandagiri Village Gram Panchayat,

Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.6914 of 2023, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing counsel for the Gram

Panchayat, Sri Chandrasekhar, learned Assistant government pleader for

Revenue Department and Sri KSR Murthy Associates, learned counsel for the

6^th respondent in W.P.No.6914 of 2023.

4. The petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2023 is the 9^th respondent in

W.P.No.12557 of 2024. Since both the writ petitions are interlinked, they are

heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The parties hereinafter are referred to with their status mentioned in

W.P.No.6914 of 2023.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2023 while

reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the 5^th respondent-

Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution dated 19.01.2000 allotting the open

site of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.470-A and subsequently, the petitioner

completed construction of church and hall in the year 2014. While so, based

on the complaint given by some people, the 5^th respondent issued notice

dated 23.07.2014 directing the petitioner to stop the construction work and not

2025:APHC:58620

to conduct any activities. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.36940/2014 wherein this Hon’ble Court has granted interim order in

favour of the petitioner. Later, the 6^th respondent herein had filed

W.P.No.30730/2018 seeking to remove the church in subject site on the

alleged ground that it was constructed by encroaching the public site.

Pursuant to the filing of the said writ petition, the respondent authorities have

issued another notice dated 07.12.2018 directing the petitioner to remove the

unauthorized construction of church within 3 days. Questioning the said

notice, the petitioner herein filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.45207/2018

wherein this Hon’ble Court has granted interim order.

He further submitted that after disposal of above writ petitions, the 4^th

respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer passed an order dated 03.01.2022

stating that the construction of church is unauthorized and not as per rules

and liable for removal and further directed the petitioner to submit fresh

proposa