APHC010208922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10763/2025 Between: Thirmalasetti Nalini ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V BABY RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P HEMACHANDRA 2. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.10763 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, appearing for respondent No.1, the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.2, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. There is no representation for the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s premises bearing D.No.13-188, situated in Gajula Street, Venkatagiri town, Tirupati District. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased an open plot admeasuring 29 square yards in the year 1984 and has constructed a house on it and is residing therein. It is submitted that the petitioner is regularly paying applicable taxes to the municipality. It is alleged that the officials of the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner’s premises on 15.04.2025 and threatened demolition. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent appears to have filed a complaint alleging encroachment by the petitioner. The -3- W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025 learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had constructed the house about 40 years ago and that there is no encroachment as alleged by any third party. 4. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed the respondent authorities not to demolish the petitioner’s premises, vide an order dated 28.04.2025. 5. The 2nd respondent has also filed the counter along with sketch. I.A. No.2 of 2025 was filed by the proposed 4th respondent for impleadment, and the application was allowed, thereby arraying him as the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has filed his counter along with a vacate stay petition. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, in the counter, submits that the petitioner has encroached upon municipal land on the eastern and western sides, covering an extent of 340 square feet and has further encroached upon the municipal street on the western side by an additional 72 square feet. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has conducted a survey in the presence of the petitioner and the extent of the encroachment was noted and recorded in the survey report. On account of the established encroachment, the 2nd respondent is bound to remove the petitioner from the encroached property. -4- W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025 7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent, in the counter, submits that the grandfather of the 4th respondent gifted the portion of the land to the 2nd respondent for construction of a bus shelter. As the 2nd respondent, instead of proposing a bus shelter, proposed to construct an elementary school, the grandfather of the 4th respondent instituted a civil suit. The said suit was dismissed. Subsequently, the same was carried to the appeal in A.S. No.827 of 2023 before this Court, which was allowed by this Court on 30.01.2025. This Court directed the respondent authorities to conduct a survey, demarcate and hand over the possession to the plaintiffs (4th respondent herein). Accordingly, the property was surveyed and possession was handed over to the 4th respondent. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit and the appeal, the petitioner had encroached on the property of the 4th respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner had endorsed the survey report, duly acknowledging the extent of encroachment. As such the petitioner cannot claim any redressal in the present writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the petitioner is willing to pay applicable charges to the municipality and the 4th respondent. -5- W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025 9. Insofar as the prayer of the petitioner seeking declaration of action of the 2nd respondent in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s premises is concerned, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition any further considering the admitted encroachment by the petitioner and the 4th respondent was handed over the possession of the property, which was gifted by the grandfather of the 4th respondent, pursuant to the cancellation of the gift deed by this Court. In these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV