IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT j THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA\k'lC WRIT PETITION NO: 29253 OF 2024 / Between: Shaik Bharani, S/o Madeena Saheb, Aged about 82 years, Occ. Self emplc^^ee, R/o D.No.4-16-93, 2^ lane, Bharathpet, Amaravathi Road Chandramoulinag Guntur City, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the Petitioner's may building situated at D.No.6-19-43/F, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 1 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the Petitioner to distress nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Article 14 (g), 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and any as 19 (i) consequently direct the meddle with the Petitioner's building situated at D.No.6-19-43/F, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 1 given by Municipality). Respondents much less the Respondent No.2 not to lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 not to meddle with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building situated at D.NO.6-19- 43/F, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No; 1 given by Municipality), pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C. BOSE, SC for MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: «s_-- 1 high court of ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010559662024 IN THE [3333] thirty first day of JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable smt justice V.SUJATHA pftiTION NO- 29253/2024 THE Between; ...PETITIONER Shaik Bharani AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State of Andhra Pradesh and another Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.AKK1SHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.ASCBOSE{SC FOR muncipal admn and urban dev ap The municipal corporations AP) 2.GP The Court made the following; 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-19-43/F, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 1 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, highhanded and violative of Article 14, 19(l)(g), 21 and erroneous, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No.2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-19-43/F, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 1 given by Municipality) ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation for 2. respondent No.2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: 3. 3 “....In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^^ respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.” In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. 5. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025 to this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTJIAR SEC'rlSrOFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order dated 22.01.2025 in WP.No. 1400 of 2025) RAM HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 anoT^ ORDER WP.No.29253 of 2024 S 2 5 FEB 2025 Current uwuun DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS ur- 1 APHC010025772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1400/2025 Between: Gudipudi Anjani Kumari, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D. No. 6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 24 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Article 14, 19(i)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No. 2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated at D. No. 6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 24 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner is the absolute Pleader respondent No.1 and 3. owner and possessor of the house bearing Door No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City No.24 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and carrying on his own business. While the matter being so, the respondents are intending to Guntur District (shop give markings to their shop for road widening purpose without following due process of law and without paying fair compensation to her. However, the case of the petitioner is also that the respondents have orally informed that they will give TDR certificate instead of fair compensation. 3 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, informed this Court that they are intending to issue a notice under Section 146 of APMC Act, 1955, to the petitioner and follow the procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act much less the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^^ respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand 1955 closed. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.01.2025 KGR