IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22125 OF 2014 Between: 1. Duggireddy Malakonda Reddy, S/o. Ramireddy, Hindu, Age: 55 Occ; Business, R/o. D.No. 11-9-29, Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State. 2. Thota Ramu, S/o. Chandrmouli, Hindu, Age; 50 years, Occ; Business, R/o. 104, Tapasvi Apt, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State. years 3. India Koteswara Rao, S/o. Narasimharao, Hindu, Age; 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 2-11-1, Burn Pet, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State. 4. Thirumalasetty Pavankumar, S/o. Ajaybabu Hindu, Age; 23 years, Occ; Business, R/o. D.no. 2-4-2/3, Enugulabazar, Narasaraopet District, Andhra Pradesh State. Guntur ...PETITIONER’S AND 1. The Government of A.P., Rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality, Narasaraopet. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 in trying demolish the fencing of the property an extent of 447.99 Sq.Yds nd Respondent, situated in D.No. 20-5-16, T.S.No. 108, Old ward NO. 2, New Ward No. 16, Bandia Bazar, Narasaraopet Town, without Proper inquiry, without considering the requests of the Petitioners, are contrary to the Provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, Contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice , illegal, unjust, and violate of fundamental rights enshrined by Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014rWVMP. NO: 2559 OF 2014) Between: The Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality, Narasaraopet, Narasaraopet ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2/-do- AND 1. Duggireddy Malakonda Reddy, S/o. Ramireddy, Hindu, Age; 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No. Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State. 2. Thota Ramu, S/o. Chandrmouli, Hindu, Age: 50 years, Occ; Business, R/o. 104, Tapasvi Apt, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State. 3. India Koteswara Rao, S/o. Narasimharao, Hindu, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 2-11-1, Burn Pet, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State. 4. Thirumalasetty Pavankumar, S/o. Ajaybabu Hindu, Age: 23 Occ: Business, R/o. D.no. 2-4-2/3, Enugulabazar, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 11-9-29, Ramireddypet years. ...WRIT PETITIONERS 5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh., Rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.27744/2014 in W.P.No.22125 of 2014 Dt. 05-08-2014 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2014rWPMP. NO: 27744 OF 7ni4| Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 2"^ Respondent, not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner's property the property an extent of 447.99 Sq.Yds situated in D.No. 20-5-16, T.S.No. 108, Old ward No. 2, New Ward No. 16, Bandia Bazar, Narasaraopet Town. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B D MAHESWARA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: 1 APHC010515422014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] •If.': FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22125/2014 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Duggireddy Malakonda Reddy and Others AND The Government Of A P Rep By Principal Secretary and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1 .CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. 2.GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following; 2 m 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 particuiarly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^ Respondent in trying demolish the fencing of the property an extent of 447.99 Sq.Yds situated in D.No.20-5-16, T.S.No.108, Old ward NO.2, New Ward No.16, Bandia Bazar, Narasaraopet Town, without Proper inquiry, without considering the requests of the Petitioners, are contrary to the Provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, Contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice, illegal, unjust and violate of fundamental rights enshrined by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India... ” 2. At the time of admission of this writ petition on 05.08.2014, this Court passed the following interim order;- “. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject property having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed dt. 12.05.2014 and when he erected fencing to protect the property, the 2 respondent officials came and removed it. nd Sri B.D.Maheswara Reddy, Standing Counsel for the 2"^ respondent seeks time to get instructions. Prima facie, the petitioner is entitled to put fencing around his private property and the 2'’'^ respondent cannot interfere with the said activity without following due process of law. Therefore, there shall be an interim direction as prayed for. In view of the fact that in pursuance of the interim direction granted by this Court on 05.08.2014 directing respondent No.2 not to interfere with the construction activity made by the petitioner without following due process of law, the petitioner has been in possession of the subject property. 3. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, except following due process of law. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 5. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality, Narasaraopet One CC to SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to SRI B D MAHESWARA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PRi.: HIGH COURT DATED:14/02/2025 i= 13 MAR 2025 n ^ . Current Section ^5s£ffSPATCVA^^ 52. ORDER WP.No.22125of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS