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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17688

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Subba Reddy Satti, J
Kandi Tata Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 17590/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G Sai Narayana Rao, U Nagendra
For the Respondents: Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, P Rajesh Kumar, Chaitanya, P Sridhar, P Shree Ram

The state authorities cannot interfere with a citizen's peaceful possession of property or initiate demolition proceedings without adhering strictly to the due procedure mandated by the governing statutes and rules.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 - Rule 32(2) - Authority empowered to issue instructions in respect of unauthorized constructions.

(B) Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 - Compliance with due procedure - Interference with possession of property without following due process is impermissible.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner obtained building plan approval for construction in Survey No. 54/13. Disputes arose with a private respondent regarding land extent and title, leading to the filing of a civil suit and an interim injunction. The petitioner alleged that the official respondents were threatening to demolish the building under pressure from the private respondent, despite no formal order of cancellation being issued by the Gram Panchayat.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that although the issue of building plan cancellation was placed before the General Body, no formal resolution was passed as the Sarpanch did not sign the proceedings. There was no evidence that the authorities had formally initiated or executed demolition acts. The Court held that respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner's possession without following the due process of law.

Issues: Whether the respondent authorities are justified in threatening to interfere with the petitioner's property possession and building structure at the behest of a private individual while civil litigation regarding the land is pending.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no final order has been passed by the competent authority to cancel a building permit and civil litigation between private parties is ongoing, the administration is strictly bound to follow the due procedure mandated under the relevant statues and rules before taking any action against a property holder.

Result: Petition disposed of with a direction to respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's property without following due procedure of law.

Table of Content
1. overview of parties and the nature of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of contentions regarding building plan legality and local authority interference. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court intervention requiring adherence to due process of law. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)

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 actions of the respondents 3 to 5 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's house property bearing Assessment No.817, situated in Sy.Nos. 54/12 and 54/13 of Akkivaram village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District at the behest of the 6th respondent against whom there is an injunction order in IA.No.318 of 2021 in O.S.No.680 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, dt.1.02.2022, as arbitrary, illegal, high handed and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and to pass

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 to direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of his house property bearing Assessment No.817, situated in Sy.Nos. 54/12 and 54/13 of Akkivaram village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

IA NO: 2 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 to vacate the interim order dated 2?.06.2022 in W.P.No. 17590 of 2022 as divide of merits and pass such

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 vacate the Interim order dated 29.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 17590 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

3. P SHREE RAM

The Court made the following:

::ORDER ::

Heard Sri U Nagendra, learned counsel representing Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswar Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri Sridhar learned counsel representing Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent No. 6.

2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 5 in interfering with the petitioner's house property bearing assessment No. 817, in Survey Nos. 54/12 and 54/13, Akkivaram Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, at the behest of respondent No. 6, despite an injunction order, dated 01.02.2022, in I.A. No. 318 of 2021 in O.S. No. 680 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner purchased 290.4 square yards in survey No.54/13 as well as the adjacent land admeasuring 338.8 square yards in survey No.54/12 under registered documents bearing Nos.3238/2015 and 2616/2018 dated 02.05.2015 and 23.07.2018 respectively from respective owners i.e. respondent No.6 and one Meesala Rajamma, W/o Late Appalanarayana and two others. In the year, 2016, the petitioner applied for a building plan before respondent No.5. The permission was granted vide No. B.R. No.3/2016 dated 05.03.2016, permitting the petitioner to construct ‘RCC G + 2’

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