APHC010280272015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 6267/2015 Between: K. Kurmanaikulu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K S MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 4. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS (AP) The Court made the following: 2 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 authorities in forcing the Petitioners to vacate D.No.1215, Ichapuram without issuing notice for paying compensation is illegal and unconstitutional while declaring that the Respondent authorities cannot take possession of D.No.12-1-5 either in full or any part or demolish house or part of it without paying compensation after due process…” 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of an old house having D.No.12-1-5 of Ichapuram Town, inherited from their father Sri K.Satyanarayana, who purchased it 80 years ago and constructed a Madras terraced dwelling. They have been paying taxes regularly, and the property was even used as collateral for a bank loan after verification of ownership. 3. While so, on 13.02.2015, the Municipal Commissioner in the process of widening roads, has informed the petitioners to remove their house without any formal notice or compensation details. When the petitioners showed the ownership documents, the authorities claimed that it was up to the Revenue Department to settle the amounts, and they would proceed with demolishing 3 the structures. On 27.02.2015, officials issued final warnings, creating an urgent threat of demolition. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the matter came up for admission on 12.03.2015, this Court passed the following interim order: “….It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are trying to demolish the house of the petitioners for the purpose of road widening, without following due process of law. It is stated that in respect of similarly situated persons, this Court granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No.44342 of 2014 in W.P.No.35445 of 2014 dated 20-11-2014, and the same is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. In view of the same, there shall be interim direction as prayed for, for a period of four weeks. Post after four weeks in ML.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 6. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.3, on oral instructions, has informed this Court that in pursuance of the interim order dt.12.03.2015 granted by this Court, the respondents have not interfered with the petitioners’ property D.No.12-1-5, Ichapuram and further stated that if at all they intend to interfere with the same, they will follow due process of law. 4 7. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the scheduled property without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 19.02.2025 JLV 5 494 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 6267 of 2015 Date: 19.02.2025 JLV