-1- W.P. No.24589 OF 2025 Date of order:16.09.2025 APHC010482362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24589/2025 Between: Smt.Nemala Sai Lakshmi, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.24589 OF 2025 Date of order:16.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.24589 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with the construction of the petitioners residential properties in an extent of 358.42 Sq. Yards (each) in R.S.No.450, 450/1 of Hukumpeta Village & Panchayat, Rajahmahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, without jurisdiction at the behest of the 6th respondent. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4. 3. The petitioners are the owners of the land admeasuring Ac.0.15 cents in R.S.No.450 of Hukumpeta Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed in the year 1970. The petitioners subsequently obtained permission for construction of a house. The 5th respondent has issued permission for construction of a building consisting of ground plus (+) two floors for residential purpose. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the men of the 2nd respondent have been visiting the subject site and orally instructing the petitioners not to proceed with further construction. It is further submitted that the first petitioner had filed O.S. No.157 of -3- W.P. No.24589 OF 2025 Date of order:16.09.2025 2025 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, against third parties who have been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. In the said suit, the learned Civil Judge had granted ad-interim injunction vide order dated 19.02.2025 restraining such interference. Inspite of the said order, the 6th respondent appears to have filed a suit and complaint alleging that a public road is required to pass through the land of the petitioners and that the petitioners are making constructions by encroaching on public road. However, the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, issued an endorsement dated 19.05.2025 clarifying that the land of the petitioners is private property and that no public road passes through it. The learned counsel further submits that the attempt of the respondent authorities in trying to interfere with the construction activity at the behest of third parties is with an ulterior motive. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that the subject property falls within the limits of the 2nd respondent and that the 5th respondent, while issuing permission for construction, has ignored G.O. Ms. No.289 dated 26.07.2017, whereby the master plan for Rajahmundry was notified. As per the master plan, 80-feet wide road is proposed through the subject property. -4- W.P. No.24589 OF 2025 Date of order:16.09.2025 6. It is further submitted that the permission granted by the 5th respondent is contrary to the said master plan, and therefore, the proposed road necessarily passes through the land of the petitioners. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that none of the respondents have issued any notice to the petitioners either regarding acquisition of the land for road purposes or pointing out any deviations in the construction undertaken by the petitioners pursuant to the permission already granted. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the respondents not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioners without following due process of law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV