IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7609 OF ?ni4 AMARAVATI 4, o Between: 1. M.Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Sri M.Ananada Raju, Aged about 42 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o, 45-54-1, Habeeb Nagar, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam. 2, M.Venkata Bala Tripura Sundari, W/o.M.Srinivasa Raju, Aged about 44 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. 5-4-2, Kothapet, Tuni, 3. M.Sudha Rani, W/o.M.Bhaskar East Godavari District. Raju, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 102, Karnal Arcade, Shantipuram, Visakhapatnam. 4. P.Madhavilatha, W/o.P.Subrahmanya Raju, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. B-98, Flat No. 102 Raghavendra Homes, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad. 5. Nut Stars Foods Pvt. Ltd. A Company registered under Companies Act Having its Regd.Office at 49-51-8, Shantipuram, Visakhapatnam Managing Director, M.VijayaKumari, W/o. M.Ananda Raju. (Petitioners 1 to 5 Rep. by S.P.A Rep. by its Holder Sri M.Ananda Raju S/o.Sri years R/o. 45-54-1, Habeeb Nagar, Appala Raju aged about 48 Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam) 6. Jampa Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Simachalam Aged about 54 years Occ; Employee, R/o. PlotNo.100, Visalakshinaga r, Visakhapatnam-53004 3 7. Meka Venkata Satya Harishchandra Ram Prasad Chowdary, S/o.Late years, Occ; Business, R/o.’ Flat No. 202 Venkat Rao, aged about 55 Thrisool Rajvihar Appts, 80 Visakhapatnam.530016 Feet Road Thadichetiupalem, Petitioners AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal, Secretary to the Department of Municipal Administration, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep.by its. Vice Chairman, • VUDA Complex, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 3.. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Assilemetta Junction, Visakhapatnam. '■h' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. praying that in the the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents herein in seeking to run the proposed 100 feet wide road across the land of the Petitioners without notice, without opportunity of hearing and contrary to the plan GOMs.No.345 MA dated 30-6-2006 and thereby acting arbitrarily and in transgression of the Petitioners rights under Art.14, 19 and 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and sanctioned in highhandedly and consequently direct them to adhere to plan sanctioned in GOMs.No.345 MA dated 30-6-2006 and the plan thereof. LA. NO: 1 OF 2016rWVMP. LA. NO: 1 OF 2016rWVMP. NO: 882 OF 2niR) Between: The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Assilemetta Junction, Visakhapatnam. Vacate Stay Petitioner/ 3'^'' Respondent AND 1. M.Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Sri M.Ananada Raju, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 45-54-1, Habeeb Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2. M.Venkata Bala Tripura Sundari, W/o.M.Srinivasa Raju, Aged about years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. 5-4-2, Kothapet, Tuni, East Godavari District, 3. M.Sudha Rani, W/o.M.Bhaskar Raju, Aged 44 about 44 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. 102, Karnal Arcade, Shantipuram, Visakhapatnam. 4. P.Madhavilatha, W/o.P.Subrahmanya Raju, Aged about 40 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. B-98, Flat No. 102, Raghavendra Homes, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad. 5. Nut Stars Foods Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered under Companies Act, Having its Regd.Office at 49-51-8, Shantipuram, Visakhapatnam Rep.by its Managing Director, M.VijayaKumari, W/o. M.Ananda Raju. (Petitioners 1 to 5 Rep. by S.P.A. Holder Sri M.Ananda Raju S/o.Sri Appala Raju aged about 48 years R/o. 45-54-1, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam) 6. Jampa Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Simachalam, Aged about 54 years Occ; Employee, R/o. Plot.No.100, Visalakshinaga r, Visakhapatnam-530043 7. Meka Venkata Satya Harishchandra Ram Prasad Chowdary, S/o.Late Venkat Rao, aged about 55 years, Occ; Business, R/o. Flat No. 202, Thrisool Rajvihar Appts, 80 Visakhapatnam.530016. Habeeb Nagar, Feet Road Thadichetiupalem, Respondents/Writ Petitioners 8. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal, Secretary to the Department of Municipal Administration, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 9. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep.by its. Vice Chairman, VUDA Complex, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. Respondents/Respondents 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 granted by this Hon'ble No.9459/2014 in W.P.No.7609/2014 dated 26-03-2014. court in W.P.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 e APHC010129122014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7609/2014 Between: M.vijaya Kumari, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VVSATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief; “...to issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents herein in seeking to run the proposed 100 feet wide road across the land of the Petitioners without notice without opportunity of hearing and contrary to the plan sanctioned in GOMs.No.345 MA dated 30.6.2006 and thereby acting highhandedly and arbitrarily and in transgression of the Petitioners rights under Art 14, 19 and 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct them to adhere to plan sanctioned in GOMs.No.345 MA dated 30.6.2006 and the plan thereof... ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 2. respondents. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the land situated in Sy.No.159/7 of Kommadi Village Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatanam District. They have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interference from the third ■ parties. The land of the petitioners 1 to 5 is enclosed by a common compound wall and is developed with pucca RCC buildings, sheds, and a press. The land of the petitioners 6 & 7 is north-west adjoining plot to the petitioners 1 to 5. In 2005, the Respondents proposed to widen the then existing road to 80 feet, which would partially impact the Petitioners’ property. Later, the proposal was revised to widen' the road to 100 3 feet, which would cut through the petitioners’ property, resulting in severe loss to them. After multiple representations, the revised master plan, approved in G.O.Ms.No.345 M.A. (30.06.2006), altered the road alignment, reduced the impact on the Petitioners’ land. Despite this, attempts were made to take possession of their land arbitrarily, leading Petitioners 1 to 5 to file W.P.No.5008/2008, wherein this Court in its order dated 11.03.2008, held that the Respondents could not take possession without due process under the Land Acquisition Act. Despite the Court’s direction, the Respondents attempted to acquire the land unlawfully. In 2012, they requested Petitioners 3 to 5 to hand over land for road widening, now misleadingly stated as 100 feet instead of the approved 80 feet. Petitioners’ consented, unaware of this deviation, while 4. Petitioners 6 & 7, whose land was also targeted, had already challenged similar actions in W.P.No.15084/2005. The Court directed authorities to consider their claims before taking action. Recently, the Respondents demolished the compound wall of Petitioners 6 & 7 and began leveling their land without notice. The road widening is now being executed disproportionately on the Petitioners' side, deviating from the approved master plan. Instead of maintaining equidistance, a major portion of the Petitioners' land is being lost while opposite government land remains untouched. The road alignment appears to be altered to benefit third parties, and a culvert at 4 the junction has been closed to facilitate this deviation. The Petitioners, upon discovering this highhanded action, protested but were ignored. Given the imminent threat of further demolition, the Petitionersare compelled to file this writ petition. 5. On 26.03.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “...Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the GVMC would state that petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 4 have given their consent for handing over an extent of 395 square metres and 223 square metres of land; the respondent corporation has demolished structures only in the area for which petitioners 1, 3 and 4 have given their consent; the GVMC would not lay a road, or demolish any structure, beyond the extent to which petitioners 1, 3 and 4 have given their consent; and with regards the other petitioners, action would be taken only after either their consent is obtained or land acquisition proceedings are initiated to acquire their lands for the purpose of laying a road. As it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the GVMC has already demolished structures, beyond the extent for which consent has been given by three of the petitioners, it is necessary that the respondents file their counter affidavit. The earlier order of status quo is modified permitting the GVMC to lay a road over the extent of land for which petitioners 1, 3 and 4 have given their consent. The order of status quo shall continue with regards land belonging to the other petitioners. It is made clear that that this order shall not preclude the GVMC from either obtaining consent of the petitioners (other than petitioners 1, 3 and 4) or to acquire their land, in accordance with law, for the purpose of laying a road.” In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the Municipal Corporation has obtained consent from the petitioners and also laid the road 6. across the petitioner’s land. But however, so far either TDRs or has been paid to the petitioners. compensation 7. As the process of giving consent and laying the road took place pending the Writ petition, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit a fresh representation duly enclosing all the documents proving right over the said property, within receipt of copy of this order and thereafter the detailed a period of one (01) week from the date of respondents after conducting enquiry in the presence of the petitioners for payment of compensation/TDR certificate in favour of the petitioners. shall pass a period of three (03) appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within months. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SEcfrON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Government Municipal Administration, A.P. ‘ 2. The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Complex, Siripuram, Visakhapatn 3. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Assilemetta Junction, Visakhapatnam. of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Secretariat, Hyderabad. Development Authority, VUDA am. Municipal Corporation 4. One CC to SRI. VV SATISH, Advocate [OP UC] 5. One CC to SRI. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three C.D. Copies nm t» HIGH COURT DATED:13/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.7609 of 2014 ANoS^ g 0 7 APR 2025 | Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS