APHC010481202025 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: 24442/2025 Between: 1. MULE SIVAREDDY,, S/O CHINNA BAYAPU REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O- 14/318, SAI NADH PURAM, MYDUKURU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MYDHKUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, YSR KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MYDHKUR DIVISION, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAGITA MOKSHITHA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the property admeasuring Ac.0.3½ cents, situated in Survey No.82/3, SBI Street, Sai Nadh Puram, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa. 2. It is further submitted that the said property is ancestral property and gifted to the petitioner vide a gift deed dated 29.12.2003, to an extent of Ac.0.1½ cents and Ac.0.02 cents of land was transferred in the name of son of the petitioner, vide a registered a sale deed dated 10.06.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed a house and has been staying there ever since. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s property is abutting the road and 2nd respondent along with the 3rd respondent is now trying to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is in the process of laying a road without resorting to the acquisition proceedings, which are mandatory required to be followed by the 2nd respondent in the event land of the petitioner is required for public purposes. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on oral written instructions submits that there is no proposal, as of now, for laying any road in Survey No.82/3. It is also stated in the instructions that due process of 3 law shall be followed in the event of respondent authorities require the land of the petitioner for the purpose of laying road. 5. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed off, making it clear to the respondents not to disturb the peace of the petitioner and not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, insofar as possession of the property is concerned. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. No order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 10.09.2025 SR