APHC010685672015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1670/2015 Between: Marlapudi Yesurathnam W/o. Kondala Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 4. S S VARMA(SR PANEL COUNSEL CENT GOVT) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents is bad, illegal, arbitrary and capricious in marking to demolish the shopping complex admeasuring in an extent of 0.3 1/2 cents i.e., 172 square yards, situated at Peddaboddepalli Road, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, without issuing any notice under Land Acquisition Act, Municipalities Act, or National High Ways Act....” 2. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Acs.0.31/2 cents in Sy.No.359/2 situated at Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam district, wherein the petitioner has constructed a shopping complex by obtaining necessary permissions. While the matter stood thus, the Narsipatnam Municipality, without issuing any notice and without even following the due process of law are marking the petitioner’s building for widening of roads in the said area. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 02.02.2015, this Court has granted status-quo existing as on that day. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the Municipal Commissioner, Narsipatnam Municipality, dated 06.01.2025 wherein it is stated that the respondents have not initiated any action for demolition of the subject building of the petitioner by marking the property nor has proposed to widen the road of the R&B Department where the petitioner’s property is in existence. It is further stated that no action will be taken against the petitioner’s property without following due process of law. 6. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the property in Sy.No.359/2 situated at Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam district, without following due process of law. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:23.01.2025 Gss