HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION NO.32050 OF 2025

Between:

A.Praharsh Dhana Syam

… Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of AP & Others

...Respondents

* * * * *

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 13.08.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment/Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment/Order? Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

2

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ WRIT PETITION NO.32050 OF 2025

% 13.08.2026

# Between:

A.Praharsh Dhana Syam

… Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of AP & Others

...Respondents

!

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : M/S. Pathi Siva Prasad

^

Counsel for the Respondents

:

1. Government Pleader for

Panchayat Raj and Rural

Development

2. Government Pleader for Home

3. Government Pleader for

Revenue

4. Standing counsel for Gram

Panchayat

5. Sri Ghanta Sridhar

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [Neutral Citation No.-

2025:AHC:103497-DB of the Allahabad High Court].

2. Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva

Samiti and another v. State of U.P. and others [Writ – C

No.3256 of 2026 dated 20.02.2026].

This Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

3

Date on which Order/Judgment was

reserved

:

02.07.2026

Date on which Order/Judgment was

pronounced

:

13.08.2026

Date on which Order/Judgment was

uploaded on the website of the High

Court

:

13.08.2026

APHC010613772025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

THURSDAY, THE 13

th

DAY OF AUGUST 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 32050/2025

Between:

1. ANUMUKONDA PRAHARSH DHANA SYAM,, SON OF APPARAO,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING OF DOOR NO. 2/23 5, KAPULA

VEEDHI, KAIKALURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT .

...PETITIONER

A N D

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE

SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATHI.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,

ELURU.

3. THE SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI

DISTRICT.

4. THE KAIKALURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KAIKALURU, WEST

GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY.

5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI S UB DIVISION,

MANDAVALLI, ELURU DISTRICT.

6. BUDDHA VENKATA RAMAIAH, SON OF MUSALAIAH, AGED

ABOUT 85 YEARS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 11 -137,

NETHIKOTTU STREET, KAIKALURU GRAM PANCHAYAT AND

MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT

7. BUDDHA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE BUDDHA M USALAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 8 -52, KAIKALURU

VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH. R7 IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT.

17.06.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026

...RESPONDENT(S):

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

4

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 or

direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the inaction of the Respondents more particularly

respondent No. 4 and 5 in refusing to demolish the dilapidated

building which is more than 100 years old which is Assessment No.

2455 in door No. 11-137, NethiKottu Street, Kaikaluru Gram

Panchayat and Mandal, Eluru District, on a ground that there is

civil litigation was pending before the court of law by passing a

proceedings vide Lr. No /PRISD. Mandavalli 2025 dated

08.09.2025, which is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article

14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set

aside the rejection proceedings passed by the 5th respondent vide

Lr. No /PRISD. Mandavalli 2025 dated 08.09.2025 and 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 to direct the respondents to

demolish the delapidated subject building which is more than 100

years old vide Assessment No. 2455 in Door No. 11 -137,

NethiKottu Street, Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Eluru

District by considering the representation of the petitioner and

villagers as well dated 21.07.2025 pending disposal of the above

writ petition and pass such

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 to implead me as 7th Respondent

in the main WP No. 32050 of 2025 and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PATHI SIVA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GHANTA SRIDHAR

The Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 32050 OF 2025

O R D E R

Heard Sri Pathi Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the Writ

Petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the Revenue, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, and Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned

counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or

direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ

of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the

respondents more particularly respondent Nos.4

and 5 in refusing to demolish the dilapidated

building which is more than 100 years old which is

Assessment No.2455 in Door No.11 -137,

Nethikottu Street, Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat and

Mandal, Eluru District, on a ground that there is a

civil litigation was pending before the Court of law

by passing a Proceedings vide Lr.No. /PRISD,

Mandavalli 2025 dated 08.09.2025, which is highly

illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 21 and

300A of the Constitution of India, and

consequently, set-aside the rejection proceedings

passed by 5

th

respondent vide Lr. No. /PRISD,

Mandavalli 2025 dated 08.09.2025 and pass such

other order or orders …”

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

6

3. Contents of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, in brief,

are that vide Gift Deed Doc.No.7508 of 2024, parents of the

petitioner gifted him a building, bearing Assessment No.2455 and

Door No.11-137, Nethikottu Street, Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat and

Mandal, Eluru District. As the said building is of 100 years old and it

is in dilapidated condition, and it would be danger to the public as

well as the nearby residents, the villagers made a representation

on 21.07.2025 to the respondent authorities, seeking for its

demolition. Pursuant to the proceeding issued by the respondent

No.4, the respondent No.5 inspected the subject property and

rejected the same on the ground that there is a civil litigation

pending before the Court in respect of the subject property.

(b) That originally, the subject property belongs to one

Kantheti Ramaiah, his wife Seshamma, later, due to Partition

among the family members, the subject property fell to the share of

said Kantheti Ramaiah and he was in separate possession and

enjoyment till his demise, on 23.04.1978, and subsequent to his

death, his wife viz. Seshamma, her four children became

successors of the said property. The said Seshamma also died

intestate on 05.12.1991, leaving her children. Thereafter, some

family disputes arose between the legal heirs of Ramaiah, and a

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

7

Partition suit vide O.S.No.87 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Machilipatnam was filed in respect of the subject property.

(c) Respondent No.6, tenant, filed O.S.No.4 of 1998 on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam for the relief of

Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale, against the legal heirs

of the deceased Kantheti Ramaiah, by creating a fake and

fabricated Sale Agreement. The trial Court conducted joint trial and

passed Common Judgment in both suits on 31.07.2000 and

decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner’s vendors, by allotting

1/4

th

share to each legal heir, and the another suit in O.S.No.4 of

1998 filed by the respondent No.6, was dismissed.

(d) Against the Decree and Judgment dated 31.07.2000

passed by the trial Court, respondent No.6 filed Appeal Suit No.124

of 2000 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at

Machilipatnam, and the same was dismissed by this Court on

25.01.2012, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the respondent No.6 preferred

Second Appeal No.1240 of 2012 before this Court, and on

14.07.2025, this Court dismissed the Second Appeal for non-

prosecution. During the said litigation, the parents of petitioner

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

8

purchased the subject property in the year 2021, by way of

Registered Sale Deed from the legal heirs of Kantheti Ramaiah.

(e) That from the date of purchase, the petitioner has

been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property

till today. Though the subject property is more than 100 years old,

and it is in dilapidated condition, which may endanger the

neighbours as well as the public, who are passing through that

street, the respondent No.6 i.e. illegal tenant and his family

members have been residing in the subject house, for which, the

petitioner and the villagers made a representation to the

respondent No.4 on 21.07.2025 seeking for its demolition. But the

respondent No.5, pursuant to the proceedings in ROC No.40/2025,

dated 28.07.2025 issued by 4

th

respondent, inspected the subject

building along with the Mandal Engineering Officer, Mandal Praja

Parishad, Kaikaluru, and submitted a report on 08.09.2025 vide

Lr.No. /PRISD Mandavalli 2025 stating that a private person

submitted a paper to him through which, he came to know that the

subject property was under the litigation before the Court. Hence,

the respondent No.5, without inquiring and without application of

mind, refused to inspect the subject building. The subject building

was now with hundreds of cracks and several pieces of slab

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

9

corners, inside and outside were broken, and the said pieces were

continuously falling on the road, due to which some of the vendors

also sustained injuries. Hence, the Writ Petition.

4. This Court vide Order dated 26.11.2025, directed the

respondent No.5-the Deputy Executive Engineer, PRI Sub-Division,

Mandavalli, Eluru District to assess the stability of the subject

building and file report. Accordingly, the respondent No.5 inspected

the subject building and submitted his Report on 09.12.2025.

5. On 29.12.2025, when the matter is taken up for

hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the subject

building is in dilapidated condition and to that effect, Feasible

Certificate was also issued to the Engineering and Panchayat Raj

Department. This Court also observed to the extent that when the

subject building is 100 years old and in dilapidated condition,

invariably, the Gram Panchayat has to ensure that no untoward

incident resulting in loss of life or limb would occur. Therefore, this

Court directed the respondent No.4-the Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat,

Kaikaluru, West Godavari District to take the subject building into

custody and place barricade.

6. During the pendency of Writ proceedings, 6

th

respondent died, and vide Order dated 17.06.2026 in I.A.No.1 of

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

10

2026, one Buddha Srinivasa Rao, who is none other than the son

of the deceased respondent No.6 was impleaded as respondent

No.7 to the Writ proceedings.

7. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent

No.7 that his father filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 for restoration of Second

Appeal No.1240 of 2012, which was dismissed for default on

14.07.2025 by this Court. The present Writ Petition was filed in

order to drive away his family from the subject property, misusing

the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994,

stating that the subject building is in dilapidated condition. He

further contends that under the guise of interim order directing the

respondent No.4 to take custody of the subject building and to

place barricade, the entry of respondent No.7 and his family

members into the subject building has been restrained. The subject

property is not in dilapidated condition. The respondent No.7, being

the legatee under the Will dated 02.06.2023, became the absolute

owner of the subject building after death of the testator, and he is

the interested person over the subject property. Hence, it is prayed

to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. Perused the entire material available on record.

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

11

9. There is no dispute with regard to the civil litigation

between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, and in

connection with that, the suit in O.S.No.87 of 1992 on the file of the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam filed for Partition of

subject property, and the suit in O.S.No.4 of 1998 filed by the

respondent No.6 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Machilipatnam, for the relief of Specific Performance of Agreement

of Sale, were disposed of, by a Common Judgment, dated

31.07.2000. Apparently, the suit in O.S.No.4 of 1998 filed by

respondent No.6, was dismissed and it is also not in dispute that

appeal preferred by respondent No.6 vide Appeal Suit No.124 of

2000 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna

at Machilipatnam, was dismissed on 25.01.2012, confirming the

Judgment passed by the trial Court. Further, it is also not in dispute

that the respondent No.6 preferred Second Appeal No.1240 of

2012 before this Court and the same was dismissed for default on

14.07.2025. Now, the only ground for filing the present Writ Petition

is to demolish the subject building.

10. Rule 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land

Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, mandates that all

unsafe buildings shall be considered to constitute danger to public

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

12

safety and hygiene and sanitation and shall be restored by repairs,

demolition or dealt with as otherwise directed by the Collector/

Executive Authority.

11. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that

the subject building bearing Assessment No.2455 and Door No.11-

137, Nethikottu Street, Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat and Mandal,

Eluru District is more than 100 years old and it is in dilapidated

condition and it would endanger the life and limb of the persons

residing nearby the said place. The material on record further goes

to show that when the petitioner and the villagers made a

representation to the respondent No.4 on 21.07.2025 seeking for

its demolition, the respondent No.5, though inspected the subject

building, could not comply the order of the respondent No.4 on the

ground that the matter is sub judice.

12. The present Writ Petition was instituted in the year

2025. It is apparent on the face of the record that none of the

respondents filed counter-affidavit. Though 7

th

respondent, who is

none other than the son of 6

th

respondent was impleaded to the

Writ Petition proceedings, except his oral contentions, he did not

file counter-affidavit. As per Rule 12 (i) (a) of the Writ Proceedings

Rules, 1977 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, every

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

13

respondent in every Writ Petition intending to enter appearance

and oppose any Writ Petition on which notice is issued by the High

Court, shall enter appearance and file a Counter Affidavit in

opposition as soon as may be and in any event one hundred and

twenty days from the date of service of notice in the Writ Petition or

the Service of Rule nisi on the said Respondent. Despite

adjourning the Writ Petitions from time to time for filing counter-

affidavits by the respondents, the counter-affidavits have not been

filed within the stipulated period of 120 days as per the Writ

Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore, this Court is constrained to

proceed with the Writ Petition basing on the material available on

record.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 would

contend that only to drive away this respondent and his family

members, the present Writ Petition was filed, misusing the

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, though

the subject building is not in dilapidated condition. He further

contends that the respondent No.7 and his family members were

restrained under the guise of interim order. The respondent No.7,

being the legatee under the Will dated 02.06.2023, became the

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

14

absolute owner of the subject building after the death of the testator

and he is the interested person over the subject property.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the building in question is such that neither its maintenance is

possible nor is it possible to get it repaired inasmuch as any

attempt at its renovation might result in collapse. Learned counsel

would contend that in a case of this nature, a Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P

1

addressed the intersection of statutory municipal demolition or

eviction actions and individual rights, emphasizing the primacy of

established legal procedures under municipal law over forceful

extra-judicial dispossession. The relevant paragraphs are extracted

hereunder: (paragraph Nos.14 to 18)

“14. In the facts of the present case, materials on record clearly

reveal urgent requirement of demolition of the tenanted premises, which is

in dilapidated condition. The authorities of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh have

proceeded to act in furtherance of the Statute but requisite action of

demolition has so far not been undertaken only because of resistance by

the tenants of the premises in question. Although 44 persons claim to be

tenants of the premises in question but their status as tenants is otherwise

disputed. We are, however, not inclined to dwell upon this aspect of the

matter as the question with regard to the determination of tenancy of

individuals would be gone into by the Rent Authority in accordance with the

applicable Statute.

1

Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:103497-DB.

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

15

15. At this juncture, we may only observe that the rights of the

tenants in such an exigency will have to be dealt with under the Tenancy

Act, 2021. The tenants, however, will not be entitled to object to the

expeditious demolition of the tenanted building, particularly when the

authorities have inspected the said premises and found the requirement of

its demolition as imperative. The applicable scheme under the Act, 1959

for protection of life of individuals on account of building being dilapidated

and posing threat to life of individuals will have to be given primacy over

the protection of tenancy rights of individual applicants.

16. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the

authorities of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh would be required to demolish the

dilapidated tenanted premises in question, in accordance with law. Such

action/exercise of the Nagar Nigam cannot be resisted by the tenants by

making protests etc. The Nagar Nigam shall provide a reasonable

opportunity to such occupants to remove their belongings.

17. We, in such circumstances, deem it appropriate to direct

the District Magistrate, Aligarh as well as Senior Superintendent of Police,

Aligarh to provide requisite police force on the request of Nagar Nigam,

Aligarh so that the dilapidated structure in question be demolished. Such

action would be undertaken strictly in accordance with law. We also

provide that the demolition of the structure would in no way affect the rights

of the tenants as are available to them under the Tenancy Act, 2021. The

requisite action in terms of the notice/Act, 1959 would be undertaken at the

earlier, preferably within two months from today.

18. We expect the tenants occupying the premises in question

to be alive to the concern of protection of life of individuals due to imminent

collapse of the building and not to create any resistance/ objection in

demolition of the building.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the

proposition of law laid down in Mukteshwar Mahadev

Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti and another v.

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

16

State of U.P. and others

2

, wherein the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad held as under: (paragraph Nos.14 to 18)

“14. It is equally well recognized that landlords are entitled to

seek eviction where premises become unsafe for occupation. Conversely,

tenants possess the right to demand maintenance of the property in

habitable condition, and in case of neglect, may undertake necessary

repairs and seek reimbursement in accordance with law.

15. However, none of these private rights can prevail over

statutory duties of the Nagar Nigam to remove dangerous structures. That

said, procedural fairness requires that occupants be afforded a reasonable

opportunity to remove their personal belongings prior to demolition, unless

emergent circumstances warrant immediate action.

16. It is held that the rights of the tenants in such an exigency

will have to be dealt with under the Tenancy Act, 2021. The tenants,

however, will not be entitled to object to the expeditious demolition of the

tenanted building, particularly when the authorities have inspected the said

premises and found the requirement of its demolition as imperative. The

applicable scheme under the Act, 1959 for protection of life of individuals

on account of building being dilapidated and posing threat to life of

individuals will have to be given primacy over the protection of tenancy

rights of individual applicants.

17. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is

satisfied that the building in question is in a ruinous condition and deserves

to be demolished without waiting for the dispute with the tenants to be

resolved. Whatever rights they may be having under the provisions of

Tenancy Act will always be available to them and the same cannot be held

to be a ground to further delay the demolition of the building in question.

18. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 is directed to demolish

the building in question within two weeks from today duly notifying the date

and time of demolition. Respondent No.4 is directed to ensure that

necessary police force is provided during the time of demolition to ensure

safety, security as well as maintenance of law and order. The respondent

2

Writ – C No.3256 of 2026 dated 20.02.2026.

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

17

authority may recover the costs so incurred in demolition of the building

from the petitioner as per law.”

15. There cannot be any dispute that protection of life of

individuals on account of building being dilapidated and posing

threat to life of individuals will have to be given primacy over the

protection of right of individuals. In the case on hand, respondent

No.5, pursuant to the directions of this Court, inspected the subject

building and submitted his Report on 09.12.2025, which is

extracted hereunder:

“I have inspected the building related to Lr.No.WP

32050/2025/PR&RD/High Court of A.P., bearing Assessment

No.2455, D.No.11-137 of Kaikaluru Village. On enquiry with the

surrounding residents, it is ascertained that the building is a

private property and is approximately 70 years old. It is a load-

bearing structure, consisting of a ground floor with an RCC slab

and a first floor partially covered with AC sheet roofing.

It is submitted that the basement level is at par with the

adjoining road at one point and slightly higher at another.

During visual inspection, cracks were observed in several walls,

and indications of water logging were also noticed. The doors

and windows on the first floor are damaged, and most of the

doors and windows on the ground floor are also in a

deteriorated condition. Hence, the structure is unfit for

occupation. Further, as the building is located adjacent to and

at the corner of high-traffic roads, the structure poses a

potential safety hazard to the general public. Therefore,

dismantling of the building is recommended in the interest of

public safety.”

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

18

A perusal of the report submitted by 5

th

respondent

goes to show that the subject building is a load bearing structure,

and that cracks were observed in several walls and indications of

water logging were also noticed. Respondent No.5 concludes that

the structure is unfit for occupation and that as the said building is

located adjacent to, and at the corner of, high-traffic roads, the

structure poses a potential safety hazard to general public, and

hence, he recommended for dismantling of the building in the

interest of public safety.

16. Indisputably, civil litigation went on between the

petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7. As per the contention of

learned counsel for respondent No.7, I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed

seeking for restoration of Second Appeal No.1240 of 2012, which

was dismissed for default by this Court on 14.07.2025. Therefore,

the respondent No.7 can as well agitate his remedies in the

Second Appeal, but not in the present Writ Petition. Whether the

respondent No.7, being the legatee under the Will dated

02.06.2023, became the absolute owner of the subject building or

not, is the disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in a

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as

this Court generally cannot and will not resolve complex or

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

19

disputed questions of right, title, or ownership over a property, and

such private disputes require a full civil trial with oral evidence and

cross-examination. Therefore, demolition of the structure would in

no way affect the right of the respondent No.7 over the subject

building, which is subject to outcome of the civil litigation between

the parties.

17. Therefore, having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, and also having regard to the Report

submitted by the respondent No.5 that the subject building poses a

potential safety hazard to the general public, this Court is satisfied

that the subject building in question is in a ruinous condition and

deserves to be demolished in the interest of public safety.

Accordingly, the respondent No.4 is directed to demolish the

building, bearing Assessment No.2455 and Door No.11-137,

Nethikottu Street, Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Eluru

District within a period of Three (03) weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this Order, duly notifying the date and time of demolition,

after taking all necessary precautions therefore such as

disconnecting power supply. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed

to provide requisite police force at the time of demolition of the

structure to ensure safety, security as well as maintenance of law

SRK, J

W.P.No.32050 of 2025

20

and order. The respondent No.4 may recover the costs so incurred

for demolition of the subject building from the petitioner as per law.

It is needless to mention here that the belongings, if any, lying in

the subject building, of the occupants of the said building be shifted

to a safer place by the occupants within a period of Two (02) weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the

authorities concerned are at liberty to do so at the expenses of the

petitioner.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

13

th

August, 2026.

DNB

Whether the Order is:

Speaking Reasoned ✔

Reportable ✔ Non-reportable

Note:

LR Copy to be marked.

B/o.

DNB