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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18873

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
PEETHANI RAMA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 27637/2025



APHC010532022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27637/2025 Between:

1. PEETHANI RAMA RAO, S/O NARASANNA (LATE), AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O 5-23, PANDITHAVILLURU VILLAGE, PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. PEETANI SURYA KUMARI, W/O SRINIVASU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O 5-32, PANDITHAVILLURU VILLAGE, PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM

3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM.

4. THE PANDITHAVILLURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANDITHAVILLURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM.

6. INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD, PANDITHAVILLURU VILLAGE, PODURU MANDAL. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PRESIDENT/PASTOR NAMELY - M GEDDAM SAMUEL JOHNSON, S/O G. SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NEAR DR. NO. 5- 15, PANDITHAVILLURU VILLAGE, PODURU MANDAL. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

7. GEDDAM SAMUEL JOHNSON, S/O G. SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. PASTOR, R/O NEAR DR. NO. 5-15, PANDITHAVILLURU VILLAGE, PODURU MANDAL. WEST GODAVARI 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 to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of 2 to 5 respondents in initiating necessary steps against the 6th and 7th respondents for illegally constructing a building on 342 sq. yards of land near Door No. 5-15, in Sy.No. 195/1 of Pandithavilluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District, and using the said building under construction as a religious place of worship/Church without obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to Rule 26 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. Consequently, direct 2 to 5 respondents to initiate necessary action to demolish the said illegal construction being used as a religious structure by stopping all religious activity and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct 2 to 5 respondents to stop all construction activity by the 6th and 7th respondents on 342 sq. yairds of land near Door No. 5-15, in Sy.No. 195/1 of Pandithavilluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District, by sealing the said illegal structure being used as a religious place of worship by the 6th and 7th respondents and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR HOME

3. GP FOR REVENUE

4. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra

5. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY The Court made the following order:

The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not initiating necessary steps against respondent Nos.6 and 7 for illegally constructing a building in 342 sq yards of land near Door No.5-15 in survey No.195/1 of Pandithavilluru village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District and are using the said building under construction as a religious place of worship/church without obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities.

2. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistan

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