APHC010182012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 9659/2025 Between: M/s Murthy Fashions Private Limited, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 9659/2025 ORDER: 1. The Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building markings being given without any notice to the Petitioner about green marking and red marking situated at D.No.6-19-63, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.49 given by Municipality) without having any right or authority high handedly and subjecting the Petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Articles 14, 19(i)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No.2 not to meddle with the Petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-19-63, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.49 given by Municipality) without following the procedure Right to Fair Compensation and contemplated under The Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of house bearing D.No.6-19-63, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2--authorities through his staff had given marking to the subject property and stated that property would be taken into possession for the purpose of road widening without issuing notification under the Act of 30 of 2013 or 3 under Sections 146 & 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the respondents are high handedly interfering. 3. While hearing, both the counsels at the bar submit that the issue is covered by the order in W.P.No.1400 of 2025, dated 22.01.2025 wherein, the operative portion of the order is as under: “5. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.” 4. Since the issue is similar and covered by the order of this Court, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of W.P.No.1400 of 2025, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s property, without following due procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.04.2025 SCS 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 53 WRIT PETITION NO: 9659/2025 Date: 21.04.2025 SCS