APHC010597552024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31362/2024 Between: Dwarampudi Veerabhadra Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA SRILAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.2 in seizing the property of the Petitioner without any notice and without even looking into the title documents held by the Petitioner in the premises bearing No.17-2-5, on an extent of 425 sq.yards situated in TS No.1965/6, situated at Parlopeta, Sanjay Nagar, Kakinada town of Andhra Pradesh at the instance of some local political leaders as being arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against to the AP Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Municipal bye-laws besides being against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to confirm the title over the seized property and pass …” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner had purchased land in an extent of 606 Sq. Yards from his vendor one Sri Magapu Somanna Dora for a valuable consideration through Registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2007 and thereafter the petitioner’s father had constructed a house bearing No.17-2-5, in an extent of 425 Sq. yards situated in TS No.1965/6, situated at Parlopeta, Sanjay Nagar, Kakinada Town. While the matter being so, at the request of few villagers and local devotees, the father of the petitioner has surrendered an extent of 71 Sq.yards for construction of Lord Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple in the Northern bit of the said plot and had also surrendered another 110 Sq. yards of land for widening of the road, which is on the western side of their plot. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner’s father, the property was surveyed by the Town Surveyor of the Civic Authority vide endorsement dated 23.06.2021, by fixing the boundaries and thereafter, the property tax was also assessed afresh over the left over extent of land i.e., 425 Sq. yards, which is in the possession and custody of the petitioner’s father. 3. While the matter stood thus, at the instance of some politically motivated un-social elements, the civic officials have been claiming the property to be belonging to the Government and are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the said property. Alleging the same, the petitioner had approached the respondent No.2 and submitted a written representation on 16.12.2024, by duly bringing into their knowledge about the petitioner’s legal right over the subject property. In spite of the same, even without there being any survey conducted by the Town Surveyor, the respondent No.2 issued endorsement dated 20.12.2024, stating that the title of the petitioner over the said property cannot be considered and as such they have taken over the possession over the site located in TS No.1965/7A (Part) of Survey Ward No.2, Block No.43 of Kakinada Town. Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 20.12.2024, issued by the respondent No.2, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri Vijay mathukumilli, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municiapal Administration and Urban Development, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material available on record. 5. On a perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2024, it can be seen that basing on the representation dated 16.12.2024, submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have neither conducted any enquiry nor any survey by the Town Surveyor for fixing the boundaries to declare whether the scheduled property belongs to the petitioner or not. It can also be seen that, when the respondents were intending to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 16.12.2024 to the respondent No.2, by duly enclosing all the requisite documents in proof of his title over the said property and requested the respondents to not to disturb his possession and enjoyment over the scheduled property. In pursuance of the said representation made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 neither conducted any enquiry nor survey to prove that the petitioner is not the owner of the said property, however, vide endorsement dated 20.12.2024, has declared that the title of the petitioner over the said property cannot be considered and as per the remarks of the town surveyor, the said site was located in TS No.1965/7A (part) of Survey Ward No.2, Block No.43 of Kakinada and it was classified as Ayan dry, assessed waste land and also that in the link document No.5517/2007, no survey number was mentioned. 6. But, However, in the subsequent document through which the petitioner purchased the subject property in document No.12217 of 2023, the survey number is mentioned as TS No.1965/7A, which in fact is not the survey number as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, it can also be observed that the respondents before issuing the impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2024, had neither conducted any enquiry nor any survey by duly giving notice to the petitioner and as well as a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also a fact that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 16.12.2024, requesting to survey T.S.No.1965/6, but not T.S.No.1965/7A. 7. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2024, issued by the respondent No.2 and further the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration of the representation dated 16.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner after duly giving a notice and as well as a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, it is made clear that any further action with regard to the dispossession of the petitioner over the subject property shall be initiated only after obtaining a report from the Town Surveyor, which shall be conducted in the presence of the petitioner. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2025 SRT 157 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.31362 of 2024 Date: 06.01.2025 SRT