Lisa Gill, CJ.

1. Prayer in this Writ Appeal is for setting aside impugned order dated 01.03.2026, whereby interim relief as claimed by present appellants/writ petitioners in writ petition No. 6847 of 2026 has been declined.

2. Appellants/writ petitioners filed W.P. No.6847 of 2026 seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 10 to stop illegal construction of one Agnikula Kshatriya flood rehabilitation centre for 14 villages in Yelamanchili Mandal on the land as described in the writ petition. It is pleaded that writ petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are elected ward members of Gram Panchayat and they along with other writ petitioners were aggrieved of action on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 9 with active support of respondents 11 and 12, in constructing Agnikula Kshatriya flood rehabilitation centre by cutting 48 coconut trees, which were growing on the land in question.

3. It is stated that an illegal resolution No.36, dated 23.12.2024, was passed by Kattupalem Gram Panchayat in this regard. Furthermore, Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to allot land reserved for park and other community purposes, for construction of a rehabilitation centre to another department. Proposal of Gram Panchayat had been opposed by petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in the meeting held on 23.12.2024 and complaints were also submitted before District Collector, Bhimavaram, but they were not considered. Reference was made to Rule 13(2) of Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017, which is reproduced as hereunder:

               “13. Reservation and Allotment of Land:

               ..

               (2). The area reserved for Public Open Space shall be handed over to the Local Authority free of cost through a registered gift deed. This area shall be used only for Parks, Playgrounds, Gardens, Nursery, Recreational Open space etc. and shall not be utilized for any purpose other than the purpose for which it is transferred. The applicant shall construct a compound wall as per the design prescribed for this site and handover to the Local Authority.”

4. Petitioners in writ petition sought interim relief to the extent that construction of said rehabilitation centre should be stalled during pendency of writ petition. This was opposed by respondents with a plea that writ petition itself is not maintainable as no fundamental right of the petitioners had been violated and that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 had duly attended the meeting on 23.12.2024 when resolution for construction of flood rehabilitation centre was passed. Permission had been duly obtained from competent authority to fell the coconut trees.

5. It was pointed out by learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12 that Kattupalem Gram Panchayat is abutting Godavari river. Said village as well as other villages in the area are prone to flooding. In the event of floods, all villages of Kattupalem and other surrounding villages had to be shifted to other places. Therefore, it was decided to construct a rehabilitation centre in Ac.0.30 cents out of Ac.0.44.6 cents in public interest.

6. Learned Single Bench while considering the question of interim relief took notice of recital in P3 gift deed executed by one K. Ramarao along with his sons and others and nine different schedules which were gifted as per the same. Land in items Nos.1 to 8 was earmarked for roads and land in item No.9 for park and other constructions. It is opined that whether Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to allot land to some other Department would be considered after a comprehensive counter-affidavit is filed.

7. It is further held that Resolution, dated 23.12.2024, had been passed to construct rehabilitation centre pursuant to recommendations submitted by CEO of Smart Andhra Pradesh Foundation Planning Department, thus purpose of construction, prima facie, was in public interest. Ten villages abutting Godavari river and prone to floods would benefit of rehabilitation centre and that in case of conflict between public interest and private interest, former must prevail. Therefore, interim relief as claimed was denied.

8. I.A. No.2 of 2026 had been filed by appellant for impleading respondent Nos.13 and 14 on premise that one Sri Arumilli Visweswara Rao and others developed a layout for residential house plots and as approved by Regional Deputy Director Town and Country Planning, Rajamundry. As per layout rules, Ac. 0.44.6 cents land including more than 55 coconut trees reserved for park and public utility in Sy.Nos.75/6P, 75/7, 75/8, 75/9, 75/11 and the same was executed by way of registered settlement deed to Kattupalem Gram Panchayat by Arumilli Visweswara Rao and others dated 04.02.2023 and handed over to Gram Panchayat.

9. It is further stated in the interlocutory application that layout developers executed registered gift deed in favour of Gram Panchayat as per Rules for benefit of layout holders including villagers but Gram Panchayat has allotted the land in question for construction of Agnikula Kshatriya flood rehabilitation centre and that too in clear-cut violation of Rule 13(2) of the aforesaid Rules.

10. No objection had been raised to impleadment of said respondents as parties to the appeal, though we take note of the fact that the said respondents were not impleaded as parties to writ petition. They were however impleaded in present proceedings in view of no objection being raised.

11. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued that Agnikula Kshatriya flood rehabilitation centre which is sought to be constructed, is addressed for benefit of one particular community alone therefore it cannot be said that action is in public interest. Underlying purpose for setting up this rehabilitation centre for one particular community alone has not been appreciated by learned single Bench and it is incorrectly held that it is being constructed in public interest. It is submitted that all these issues have not been considered, thus the matter be placed before learned Single Bench to be decided afresh.

12. Learned counsel for State and Gram Panchayat have opposed the writ appeal while submitting that present appeal challenging interlocutory order should not be entertained and even on merits, no case is made out in favour of appellants as mere nomenclature of centre is irrelevant.

13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file.

14. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing the file, it is considered appropriate that the matter is placed before learned single Bench for a decision afresh on the matter keeping in view provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Rules and apart from the same, the averment that rehabilitation centre is being used for the benefit of only one community. There has been no clarity in this respect during the proceedings before us, despite opportunity being given to official respondents in this respect. In view of impleadment of respondent Nos.13 and 14 in the present appeal, it is directed that the said respondents be also impleaded as parties in the pending writ petition.

15. Liberty is afforded to writ petitioners to bring on record necessary documents by way of a specific affidavit to substantiate their plea in respect to respondent Nos.13 and 14. Such documents be filed within one week. In case Writ Petition No.6847 of 2026 is not yet listed for hearing on a particular date, same be listed for hearing on 09.07.2026 before appropriate Bench having roster. Parties are at liberty to raise all available pleas before learned single Bench.

16. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. It is clarified that observations in this order are for the purpose of disposal of this appeal only. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.