APHC010310542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15588 OF 2025 Between: 1. MAANASA, Rep. by its partner Smt Pulikonda Srivalli, W/o.Pulikonda Pichaiah, aged about 54 years, R/o.4-20-21, Siddarthanagar, 1st Line, Ring Road, Guntur Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The CollectorcumLand Acquisition Officer, The Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Resettlement Authority, Guntur, Guntur District. ...Respondent(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: K SAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): K SAIRAM MURTHY,GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.15588 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent authorities in not following the procedure as contemplated under Section 28 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act 30 of 2013”), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner is a tenant in a shop situated at Ground Floor, D.No.5/98/58/2, 3, 4 and 5, Beckker Compound, Brodipet Main Road, Guntur under the name and style of M/s. Maanasa and running a Show Room of purchase and sale of cloth, textiles and readymade garments. While so, the Respondent No.2, as a part of development of roads in Guntur Municipal Corporation proposed to take up the road widening of Arundalpet main road. In pursuance of the same, a notice under Section 146 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, dated 13.02.2025 was issued to the landowner intimating that an extent of 60.11 Sq. Yards of the building in question could be affected for the purpose of proposed road widening of Arundalpet main road and requested the landowner to co-operate with the same by giving consent. 3 3. The landowners appear to have given consent. In that scenario, the Petitioner and similarly situated persons had met the concerned officials and raised objections stating that the proposed action would virtually cause loss to their business. As there was continuous threat of road widening and demolition of shops on any given date, the present Writ Petition is filed for the relief mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated his submissions stating that if their shop is demolished to the extent as mentioned in the notice issued to the Petitioner/landlord on 13.02.2025, the business in the balance extent of shop could not be continued. It is also contended that the Petitioner had invested substantial amounts for renovating the shop in question. The learned counsel also pointed out that his right should be considered as he is also a “person interested”, since he is in possession of the property. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent- Corporation would submit that the issue in question does not fall within the purview of Section 28 of the Act 30 of 2013 as the primary source of livelihood of the Petitioner would not be affected even if the portion of the shop is required for the purpose of road widening. It is 4 contended that the owner of the building had consented for road widening and further submits that without there being any loss or likely loss of business, the Writ Petition cannot be maintainable. 6. Having heard the respective counsels, this Court opines as follows; A Division Bench of this Court in Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad1 considered this aspect. After referring to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Constitution of India, held that the consent given by the landowner for acquisition of land under Section 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 was held to be not binding on the “lessee” and the Municipal Corporation cannot take forcible possession of the property in question. Paragraph 10 thereof is extracted below; “10. The 1st respondent is a statutory authority. Its right to take possession of the land, therefore, must be exercised within the four corners of the statute. It is one thing to say that the provisions laid down under the said Act for acquiring the land are not required to be taken 1 2001 (3) ALD 173 5 recourse to as the owner thereof has granted consent but the same would not mean that the lessee's consent need not be taken. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the said consent granted by the owner would not be binding upon the lessee and in that view of the matter the 1st respondent had no right to take forcible possession of the land in question, relying on the purported consent obtained by it from the petitioner's lessor without taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as thereby the petitioner shall be deprived of its own valuable right...........” 7. In the light of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the Respondent authorities shall have to initiate the proceedings under Act 30 of 2013 in the absence of consent to be given by the Petitioner the consent of the landowner would not be binding on this Petitioner. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the Respondent authorities to consider the objections of the Petitioner before taking further action to demolish shop in question. 6 9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 26.06.2025 IS 7 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.15588 of 2025 Date: 26.06.2025 IS