APHC010362432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20007/2025 Between: 1. C PADMAVATI, W/O. LATE C. HARI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 19-110, GADANG STREET, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPURAMU MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDAR, ANANTAPURAMU MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 in disposing of the petitioners representation dt.10.04.2025, seeking compensation for demolition of petitioners house in the land admeasuring Ac 0.01cent in Sy.No.444 of Netaji Nagar, Anantapuramu Town and District, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art-14, 21 and Art-300A of the constitution and consequently direct the Respondents to dispose the petitioners representation dt 10.04.2025, seeking compensation for arbitrary and illegal demolition of petitioners house in the land admeasuring Ac 0.01cent in Sy.No.444 of Netaji Nagar, Anantapuramu Town and District by the 4th respondent. 2 IA 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 dispose the petitioner’s representation dt: 10.04.2025, seeking compensation for arbitrary and illegal demolition of petitioner’s house in the land admeasuring Ac.0.01cents in Sy.No.444 of Netaji Nagar, Anantapuramu Town and District by the 4th respondent, in a fixed time frame, pending disposal of above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 20007 of 2025 ORDER: The present 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 in disposing of the petitioners representation dt.10.04.2025, seeking compensation for demolition of petitioners house in the land admeasuring Ac 0.01cent in Sy.No.444 of Netaji Nagar, Anantapuramu Town and District, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art-14, 21 and Art-300A of the constitution and consequently direct the Respondents to dispose the petitioners representation dt 10.04.2025, seeking compensation for arbitrary and illegal demolition of petitioners house in the land admeasuring Ac 0.01cent in Sy.No.444 of Netaji Nagar, Anantapuramu Town and District by the 4th respondent.” 2. The petitioner in this writ petition asserts that the respondents unlawfully demolished a house constructed in an extent of Ac.0.01cent in Sy.No.444, Plot No.8, Anantapuram Town and District. This action was taken without adhering the interim order issued on 24.11.2017, in W.P.M.P.No.49402 of 2017, in W.P.No.39842 of 2017. The pleading in this writ petition is that, the petitioner has purchased the property from J. Lakshamakka through a registered sale deed (Document No.1992/2009) dated 07.03.2009, and since then the petitioner is in enjoyment of peaceful possession of the property. However, due to certain political pressures, the house 4 was demolished, leaving the petitioner homeless and the petitioner is in extreme situation of poverty. The petitioner claims that the demolition is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is currently residing in a rental house following the demolition. She further asserts that she is the owner of the property and submitted a representation to the respondents on 10.04.2025, seeking compensation for the demolition. To date, there has been no response from the respondents. The petitioner urges this Court to direct the respondents to address her representation dated 10.04.2025 for compensation, emphasizing that no citizen should be deprived of their property without due process and that property rights are protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in 1985 (3) SCC 545 it was held that the eviction from pavements and slums will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of the right to life. It was also held that pavement dwellers and slum dwellers are using pavements and other public properties for an unauthorised purpose; that opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to them on ground that they are trespassers; trespass is a tort and that but, even the law of torts requires that though a trespasser may be evicted forcibly, the force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and appropriate to the occasion 5 and, what is even more important, the trespasser should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity to depart before force is used to expel. 4. In the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekhala Pandu and others reported in AIR 2004 A.P.250 wherein the said case it is held that assignees of Government land are also entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 5. It is the specific pleading of the writ petitioner that she is the owner of the property as discussed in prefatory or introductory paragraph of this order. And this Court finds that it is appropriate to direct the respondents to address the representation dated 10.04.2025 filed by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to address the representation dated 10.04.2025 in accordance with law and it is to be understood that it must be done within six weeks from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 04.08.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:20007 of 2025 Date : 04.08.2025 SPP