JERRIPOTHULA MUTYALA NAIDU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND ITS

7. SRI SEETHA S. SURYANARAYANA, AGED 60 YEARS, POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- APPALA NAIDU, LATE S/O. 3

8. SEETHA SANYASI NAIDU, S/O.VENKU NAIDU, AGED 36 YEARS, POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

9. SEETHA PYDI NAIDU, S/O. S.SANYASI NAIDU, AGED 36 YEARS, POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

10. SEETHA MANIKYAM, S/O. LATE SIMHACHALAM, AGED 33 YEARS, POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

11. SEETHA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE S. VENKATA SWAMY R/O. POLEPALLI VILLAGE, @ BULLABAI, AGED 33, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

12. SEETHA CHINA VENKATA RAMANA, LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED 36, R/O. POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036. S/O.

13. SEETHA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE GANGU NAIDU, AGED 26, R/O. POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

14. SEETHA GANESH, S/O. S. APPALANAIDU, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O. POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

15. TUMPALA RAJU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 38 YEARS R/O. POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETAMANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

16. TUMPALA SURI SURYANARAYANA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED 30 YEARS R/O. POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

17. JERRIPOTHULA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 35, R/O. POLEPALLI VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA 4 MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP- 531036.

18. MADISETTI APPA RAO, S/O. RAJU, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O. BUTCHAYYAPETA VILLAGE, BUTCHAYYAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLIDISTRICT, AP- 531036 ...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 of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents in not protecting Janakamma Cheruvu, a Government Tank Mandal, in Sy.No.134, Polepalli Village, Butchayyapeta situated Anakapalli District and in not conducting enquiry into illegal tree cutting by respondents 8 to 18, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.188/2011 and AP WALTA Act, 2002, and consequently to direct the respondents to consider our representations and conduct detailed enquiry in respect to illegal cutting of trees and to protect the Tank from further encroachments and to pass s 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 the respondents to forthwith prevent any further encroachments, tree cutting, or alterations in respect of the Government Tank known as “Janakamma Cheruvu” situated in Sy.No.134, Polepalli Village, Butchayyapeta Mandal, Anakapalli District, and to maintain status quo as on today, including protection of the tank bund, water spread area and trees, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MUTYALA SOBHANADRI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR REVENUE

3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 5 The Court made the following: ORDER: Challenging the action of the respondents in not protecting Janakamma Cheruvu, a Government Tank situated in Sy.No.134, Polepalli Village, Butchayyapeta Mandal, Anakapalli District, and in not conducting enquiry into illegal tree cutting by the respondent Nos.8 to 18, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Mutyala Sobhanadri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that despite making representations to the respondent authorities and though a statutory duty is cast upon the Gram Panchayat by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011, to protect the tanks, they are not protecting the subject tank wherein the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 18 are cutting the trees, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the said tank.

4. Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, on written instructions dated 03.01.2026 submitted that they 6 are only clearing the bushes in the subject land and the allegations with regard to cutting of trees is false. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat will definitely protect the government tanks in view of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The contention of the petitioners is that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 18 are cutting the trees in the subject tank land and selling them unauthorizedly and despite making representations dated 22.02.2025,

25.02.2025 & 07.03.2025 and also PGRS grievance dated 10.03.2025, the respondents are not protecting the same. When certain trees have been cut in the month of February, 2025, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioner has filed the writ petition in December, 2025. However, the written instructions vide Rc.No.01/PS/2026 dated

03.01.2026 would indicate that they are only clearing bushes and not cutting any trees. Further, the Gram Panchayat has an intention to protect the subject tank.

7. In view of the same, as the unofficial respondents are only clearing the bushes and not cutting trees as alleged their petitioners and the respondent authorities have an intention to protect the subject tank, there 7 is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondent-Gram Panchayat is directed to protect the subject tank by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 which is classified as Janakamma cheruvu/Panchayat property. Further, to look into the grievance of the petitioner so raised in the representations and the PGRS complaint and if found that any trees were cut by the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 18 unauthorizedly, shall take steps against them in accordance with law. If the Gram Panchayat comes to a conclusion that no trees were cut or sold as alleged by the petitioner, they shall inform the petitioners by passing a reasoned order.”

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th January, 2026 RKS