IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE AMARAVATI > £t r.> m V.-' \o '•V*. o / . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11233 OF 2n7.‘i Between: Syed Almas Uszama, S/o Late Abdul Sattar, R/o Room No.30, 4*' floor, SR Towers, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. Male, Aged about 60 years, SVR Layout, Madanapalli, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Andhra Pradesh. 2. Kadiri Municipaiity, Represented by its Commissioner, Sai District. Municipal Guntur District, Kadiri, Sri Satya ...Respondents Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may more particularly one in the Respondent No. 2 in not be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, nature of Writ of Mandamus, the action of the taking steps for removal of the municipal drainage which is passing from Ajanta Cinema Centre to Kadiri Bypass Road across my iayout plot No.s % 46, 47. 48, 49 & 50 in R.S. No. 680-2, 684/1, 684/2, 684-4 of Kummara Veedi, 9th ward in Kadiri Town of Municipality, 0pp. Muradsha Masjid Satya Sai District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violation of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and its Rules, and also violation of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and its rules of there under and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to restore the drainage channel towards south side of the petitioner plots at the cost of the municipality and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Sri old lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider representation/legal notice dated 13.03.2025 for removal of the existing drainage in the middle of the petitioners plots bearing No.s 46, 47, 48, 49 & 50 in R.S. No. 680-2, 684/1, 684/2, 684-4 of Kummara Veedi, 9th ward in Kadiri Town of Municipality, 0pp. Muradsha Masjid, Sri Satya Sai District pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SC MUNICIPALITY FOR The Court made the following: APHC010213312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11233 OF 2025 Between: Syed Almas Uszama ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11233 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in not taking steps for removal of the municipal drainage which is passing from Ajanta Cinema Centre to Kadiri Bypass Road across petitioner’s layout plot Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 in R.S.No. 680-2, 684/1, 684/2, 684/4 of Kummara Veedi, 9'^ Ward in Kadiri Town and Municipality, Cpp. Muradsha Masjid, Sri Satya Sai District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and its Rules, and also violative of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and its rules of there under and also offends Articles 14,21 and 300-A Of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to restore the old drainage channel towards south side of the petitioner plots at the cost of the municipality and pass such other orders....” 2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned plots, having got the same from his mother by way of Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 07.07.2023 vide document No.8192/2023. The mother of the petitioner purchased the subject property from third parties vide document No. 1823/1968. While so, the Respondent Authorities laid a drainage channel in the middle of the subject property, thereby the petitioner is thereby restricted from ingress and <1^ egress for usage of the entire property. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the alignment of the drainage channel is altered or diverted from the subject property, the petitioner would be able to enjoy the property peacefully without any loss. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the petitioner did not object in laying the drainage channel at the relevant point of time and now cannot turn out and asked for different relief in this Writ Petition. 5. Considering the nature of the issue involved in this writ petition, it would be appropriate for the writ petitioner to submit a representation ventilating his grievance to the Respondent Authorities for change of alignment of drainage channel, rather than straight away approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In that view, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions: i) The petitioner shall make representation along with title documents to the Respondent Authorities, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; ii) On such receipt of the representation, the Respondent Authorities shall examine the feasibility and act accordingly, within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter. % 7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi. Amaravathi, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh. 2. One CC to Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G. Lakshminarayana, Standing Counsel for Municipality [OPUC] 4. Two CCS to GP for MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV (AP), High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies sree ,1* HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11233 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS