APHC010519492014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10732/2014 Between: Maddirala Joseph Emmanial, Guntur Dist ...PETITIONER AND Prl Sey Maud Dept Hyd 2 Ot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N PRAMOD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV 4. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)- 26141/AP/1393/1999. The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seeking to demolish/evict the petitioner’s house property situated at D.No.3-1-194/26 covered under S.No.51/C9 (T.S.No.1690/11 & 1690/12) to an extent of 0.05 Cents of Guntur City and Guntur District and dispossessing the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under the Law, without sanction of authority of law, as illegal, Arbitrary, unjust, untenable unconstitutional, without Jurisdiction, violative of Article 14, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently to direct the respondent to forebear from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property as the petitioner is not liable to demolish/evict in light of the decree and Judgment dated 31.12.2009 made in O.S.No.648 of 2005 on the File of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of house property situated in Sy.No.51/C9 to an extent of 0.05 cents at D.No.3-1- 194/26. While the matter being so, under the guise of the notice dated 01.04.2014 issued to one Cherkuri Nirmala Jyothi, the 2nd and 3rd respondent are trying to interfere into the petitioner’s possession without giving any notice to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. 3. On 07.04.2014, this Court passed the following interim order:- “For a period of ten days, the subject structure shall not be demolished. The petitioner shall also not make any further constructions.” On 22.04.2014 the said interim order was extended until further orders with a direction to the petitioner not to make any further construction, alienate or create third party rights or change the nature of the land. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation. 5. On a perusal of the said notice, it can be understood that the said notice was given to one Cherukuri Nirmal Jyothi, directing her to vacate the premises within 7 days of the said notice, which infact is in pursuance of the orders passed in Second Appeal No.33 of 2013 on 13.12.2013, admitted by which is no way concerned with the petitioner’s property. As the respondents are interfering into the petitioner’s possession over the subject property under the guise of the said notice, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession without following due process of law. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 05.02.2025 JLV 434 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.10732 of 2014 Dt.05.02.2025 JLV