APHC010201152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10316/2025 Between: Sereddy Parveen Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.10316 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in interfering with the Petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over his property in Door No.25-16-105, Ramachandrapura Agraharam, Guntur, Guntur District by threatening to demolish the same under the guise of development of drainage line, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Alapati Lalith Nikhil, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2-Corporation. 3. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the above mentioned property. The Petitioner’s father had gifted the property in favour of the Petitioner vide Gift Deed bearing document No.1492 of 2022 on 11.02.2022. Prior to the execution of the Gift Deed, the father of the Petitioner had purchased the share of other co-owners under registered Sale Deeds vide document bearing Nos.3319 of 2019 & 8278 of 2021 on 05.04.2019 and 04.06.2021 respectively. 3 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the schedule property is assessed to Municipal tax and is being paid tax regularly. 5. The learned standing counsel for the Respondent No.2- Corporation passed on the signed instructions of the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, wherein it was stated that the Petitioner had illegally extended the construction of 15 feet into public trunk road, which is not part of Sy.No.1 of Ramachandrapuram Agraharam. As the Petitioner had encroached, the Respondent-Corporation would initiate action after following due process of law. 6. In the light of the written instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following direction: (i) The Respondents shall follow due process as per law before initiating any action to dispossess the Petitioner from the encroached portion of the land; 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 22.04.2025 IS 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.10316 of 2025 Date: 22.04.2025 IS