APHC010100862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5566/2026 Between:

1. U NDRU APPAJI, S/O (LATE) VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.6-7-029, FARAMPETA, YANAM, PUDUCHERRY -533464.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI 522237 AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, BESIDES ZILLAPARISHAD BUILDING, KAKINADA KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533001.

3. T HE TAHSILDAR, TALLAREVU MANDAL, NEAR CHERUVUGATTU, TALLAREVU, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533463.

4. T HE SECRETARY, NEELAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, NEELAPALLI VILLAGE, TALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533464.

5. T HE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TALLAREVU MANDAL, MAIN ROAD TALLAREVU, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533463.

6. D ULIPUDI KALI KRISHNA, , S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O. 7-1-033, YANAM, YANAM DISTRICT, PUDUCHERRY STATE-533464.

...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 an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents herein especially of the Respondent No.4 in issuing Notice, dated 17.02.2026 ( Impugned Notice) for removal of alleged encroachment and threatening the petitioner for dispossession from the land an extent of AC.0.013 cents( 5.66 Square feet) land in Sy.No.161-3B of Neelapalli Village, Tallarevu Mandal of Kakinada District, (Erstwhile East Godavari District) AndhraPradesh is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unilateral, without authority of law and high- handed discrimination and contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of The AndhraPradesh Panchayat raj Act, 1994 and contrary to the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Government of AndhraPradesh V. Tummala Krishna Rao and violative of article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents No.2-5 herein not to dispossess/evict the petitioner from the subject land without initiating appropriate civil proceedings in terms of Tummala KrishnaRao Supra and/or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 No.2-5 herein not to dispossess the petitioner herein from the subject land without initiating appropriate civil proceedings in terms of Tummala Krishna Rao judgment, pending disposal of the main Writ petition and/or PASS Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DR.VINAKOTI SRINIVASULU AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following:

::ORDER ::

Assailing the notice dated 17.02.2026, issued by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.4, the above writ petition was filed.

2. Heard Sri Vinakoti Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 & 2; Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondent No.3 and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 4 & 5. Notice of respondent No.6 is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed affecting the right and interest of respondent No.6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no show-cause notice was issued prior to the issuance of Ex.P1 notice. He would also submit that though Ex.P1 is styled as a notice, it is in the form of an order; hence,