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) 22027

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CHOKAKULA RAMANNA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 6260/2023



2025:APHC:53276 APHC010123962023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6260/2023 Between:

1. CHOKAKULA RAMANNA, S/O LATE KANNAYA @ DONGABABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PANCHAYAT RAJ) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLE.

3. THE DEVARAPALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATI SECRETARY DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE.

...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 Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent contemplating to demolish the building covered by the Gramakantam land measuring 750 Sq. ft, measuring East to West 15 ft and North to South 50 ft, out of the total extent of said survey number 259/2 situated in Devarapalli village, Devarapalli mandal, Anakapalle District without considering his case under deemed sanction as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1992 and also violative of Art.14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently, command respondents not to interfere with the subject property of the petitioner by granting building permission forthwith in the interest of justice.

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 to direct the 3rd respondent not to demolish the building covered by the Gramakantam land measuring 750 Sq. ft, measuring East to West 15 ft and North to South 50 ft, out of the total extent of said survey number 259/2 situated in Devarapalli village, Devarapalli mandal, Anakapalle District in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant leave to file the reply to counter filed by the 3rd respondent Dt.20.04.2023 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)

The Court made the following:

ORDER This writ petition is filed to declaring the action of respondent no.3-

Gram Panchayat in contemplating to demolish the building covered by the Gramakantam land situated in Survey No.259/2 of Devarapalli Village &

Mandal, Anakapalle District, without considering the case of the petitioner under deemed sanction.

2. Heard Sri Sai Sree Sanjay, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, and Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat.

3. Sri Sai Sree Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that the petitioner inherited the subject property from his father and eversince he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he made an application for building permission and as the Gram Panchayat did neither approve nor reject the same, having waited for statutory period covered under deeming provision, he started construction of the building in the subject property. The learned counsel would further contend that earlier the petitioner obtained permission for digging borewell and the same is also provided with electricity connection and ever since the he has been paying electricity charges. He would further c

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