Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/21531/2025 of G PAVAN KUMAR Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July 2026
reserved for orders : NIL Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010422012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21531 of CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO:
Date of reserved for orders : N
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading
:
APHC010422012025
IN THE H
(
THURSDA
THE HONOU
WRIT
CONTE
WRIT PETITION NO: 2153
Between:
1. G PAVAN KUMAR, S
YEARS, OCC SO
MOTHUKAPALLI, HIN
1. STATE
OF
ANDH
SECRETARY
MU
SECRETARIAT, VELA
2. THE HINDUPURAM M
HINDUPUR, SRI SATY
3. DISTRICT COLLECTO
4. THE TAHSILDAR, HIN
5. THE STATION HOU
HINDUPUR, SRI SATY
NIL
16.07.2026
23.07.2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
URABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
PETITION NO: 21531 of 2025
IN/ AND
EMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025
S/O. G. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED A
FTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. D. NO
NDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
...PE
AND
HRA
PRADESH,
REP.BY
ITS
P
UNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
DEPA
AGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIS
MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMIS
YA SAI DISTRICT.
OR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
NDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
USE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE
YA SAI DISTRICT.
ABOUT 31
O.24-1-86,
TITIONER
PRINCIPAL
ARTMENT
TRICT.
SSIONER,
STATION,
6. G KRISHTAPPA, S/O. G. MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC
CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO.24-1-64, MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR
MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR
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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 5
in allowing the 5th respondent to raise unauthorized constructions by encroaching the road despite Endorsement in Roc. NO.151/2020/G1 dated 06-06-2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to remove unauthorized constructions in the road area situated between B.C colony road and House No.24-1-11, Mothukapalli, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to stop the unauthorized constructions in any manner by the 6th respondent in the road portion of the government situated between B.C colony road House No. No.24-1-11, Mothukapalli, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.V V SATISH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K
2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
3.Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025
Between:
1. G. PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. G. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. D. NO.24-1-86, MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. G MALLIKARJUNA, THE HINDUPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY
ITS COMMISSIONER, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT.
2. A
SHYAM
PRASAD,
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR,SRISATYASAI
DISTRICT.
3. G VENKATESHU, THE TAHSILDAR,HINDUPUR SRI SATYASAI
DISTRICT.
4. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN
POLICE STATION, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT.
5. G KRISHTAPPA, S/O. G. MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC
CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO.24-1-64, MOTHUKAPALLI, HINDUPUR
MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT.
...CONTEMNOR(S):
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to summon the respondents and punish her under section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate violation of order dated 04-09.2025 in WP No.21531/2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.V V SATISH
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1.CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K
2.P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY
3.GUDAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA
4.A JAYANTHI
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 21531 of 2025
IN/ AND
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2784 OF 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:-
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondents No.2 to 4 in restraining the Respondent No.5 to raise unauthorized constructions by encroaching the road, despite an endorsement dated 06.06.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.6 was encroached the public road and resorted to certain constructions, which were objected by the Petitioner. It is also submitted that though the Respondents No.2 had issued proceedings dated 06.06.2025 calling upon the Respondent No.6 to remove the unauthorized constructions by encroaching public property no further steps have been taken.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 are opposing each other in civil proceedings. The suit was initially filed for injunction, which was decreed in favour of Respondent No.6 and in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was allowed and that Second Appeal is pending before this Court. It is submitted that the suit is filed for private property and in the schedule property the suit does not relate to open area/ public road.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that vide Memo dated 12.09.2025, the Petitioner has placed on record the photographs of the existing temporary shed, which is constructed by encroaching on the road. Though, the Respondent No.2 has removed the unauthorized structures on the road in the year 2024, the Respondent No.6 has again raised a construction by encroaching on the road.
5. It is submitted that in the Counter filed by the Respondent No.2 that the Respondent No.2 has issued proceedings calling upon the Respondent No.6 to remove the unauthorized encroachment on the road in front of the Petitioner’s house and on failure of Respondent No.6 to remove the said structures, the Respondent No.2 had sent their men and get the unauthorized construction removed.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 would submit that the subject property of the Writ Petition is a public road as claimed by the Petitioner and that the Respondent No.6 is the owner and possessor of the said area, which is adjacent to the house of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 are related and that they are opposed each other in the civil proceedings pertaining to the said property.
7. It is also submitted that the issue relating to the title of the property is pending adjudication in Second Appeal No.419 of 2008 on the file of this Court. It is also submitted that the Petitioner instead of pursuing the legal remedy in S.A.No.419 of 2008 has filed the present Writ Petition by suppression of facts with regard to title of Respondent No.6 over the property.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the schedule property of the suit and the Appeal and Second Appeal is completely different distinct and writ petition property. It is submitted that the subject property, which is unauthorized occupation of Respondent No.6.
9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and learned counsel for the Respondent No.6.
10. Perused the record.
11. As seen from the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.6, unauthorized construction over the public property was sought to be removed by issuing a notice. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.2 has taken action and removed the unauthorized construction in the year 2024. However, as seen from the photographs submits by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, they are appears to be another construction over the subject property. In order to determine the issue whether the subject construction has encroached in public road or not, it is for the Respondent No.2 to send their town surveyor or any other competent officer to conduct proper survey and take immediate steps for restoring the public property.
12. With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As the Writ Petition is disposed of, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 16.07.2026 KK Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned ☑ Reportable
Non-reportable ☑