Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36078 (AP)

UPPULURU UMADEVI, VISAKHAPATNAM & 80 OTHERS v. COMMR, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM & 5 OTHERS

WP/37513/2013 · 2025-01-24

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010586552013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 37513/2013 Between: Uppuluru Umadevi, Visakhapatnam & 80 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Commr Gvmc Visakhapatnam 5 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 4. GP FOR REVENUE 5. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the Respondents No.1 to 5 who are trying to dispossess the petitioners and demolish their respective structures to an extent of 90 sq.yds each, total extent of Ac3.00 cents in Survey no.1, ward no.6, Durganagar, Endada village, Visakhapatnam district with the aid of the Respondent no.6, is illegal, arbitrary high handed in violation of Principals of Natural Justice and in violation of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently I direct Respondents not to interfere dispossess demolish the respective structures of the Petitioners in Survey no 1 Ward no 6 Endada village Visakhapatnam ii Direct the Respondent no 3 to 5 to grant pattas in favour of the petitioners as per Board Standing Order 15 by considering the representations pending before them…” 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 has furnished a copy of instructions, wherein it is stated that the said survey number claimed by the petitioners is under encroachment and a colony was formed by name Durga nagar with 100 Dwelling units. There are nine scattered Vacant sites and those plots which are under the control of Government (Revenue Department). The Tahsildar has already enumerated the details of Dwelling units. Out of the said 100 Dwelling units, 29 were regularized under G.O.Ms.No.296 and G.O.Ms.388. It is noticed that there are no fresh encroachments as of now. The said houses were constructed over a period of 10 years and are also having basic amenities like roads, electricity, water connections etc., further appropriate 3 action will be taken against the petitioners following due process of law by taking into consideration all material evidence available with them. 3. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 has informed this Court that they are not interfering with the petitioners’ possession. 4. In view of the same, inspite of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession, if they are in possession as of now, without following due process of law. 5. With the above said 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 : 24.01.2025 JLV