IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30497 OF 2024 Between: Vikas Jain, S/o Bhanwarlal Jain, Aged about 44 years, Occ Self employee, R/o D.No.3-65, Flat No.F4, Tulasi Mansion, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and 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 may 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 building situated at D.No.5-98-13/7, Brodipet/Arundalpet main road, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No 92 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.5-98-13/7, i Brodipet/Arundalpet main road, Guntur by Municipality). •• ‘S . Guntur District (Shop No 92 given I lA NO: 1 OF ?n94 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 not to meddie with the Petitioner^ peacefui possession and enjoyment of the building situated at D.No.5-98- 13/7, Brodipet/Arundalpet main road, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No: 92 given by Municipaiity), pending disposai of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN& URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC for MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010584342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30497/2024 Between: Vikas Jain ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and another Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the seeking the following relief: Constitution of India .... to issue a Writ or order or direction nature of WRiT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon situated more particularly one in the action of the the Petitioner’s building at D.No. 5-98-13/7, (Shop No. 92 Brodipet/Arundalpet main road, Guntur, Guntur District 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 'I9(i)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and 14, consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No. 2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated Brodipet/Arundalpet main road, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop given by Municipality) ” at D. No. 5-98-13/7, No. 92 2. 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 respondent No.2. Corporation for 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the submit that the issue involved petitioner would 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 disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: same is not 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 4. 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. 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 5. costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand Sd/- N. NAGAMMA assistant registrar closed. //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District. Sri A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] SC for Municipalities [OPUC] Guntur Municipal 3. OneCCto 4. One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose 5 Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies (qoD o/ RAM HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 [I 2 8 FEB 2025 A Current Section ORDER WP.No.30497 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS 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: 1.A K KfSHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 r'’ 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 ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing Door No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (shop 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 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. 3 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, 1955 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 4. closed. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.01.2025 KGR