APHC010704302016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27511/2016 Between: Kasa Venkata Lakshmi ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By The Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the rd respondent authority in giving markings to the petitioner's property and trying to demolish the petitioner's property admeasuring an extent of 60 sq. yards in TS No. 307/1 bearing Door No. 25-2-8 of Bondilagudem New Colony, Vizianagaram without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently to direct the respondent authorities not to demolish the petitioner's property mentioned above and further direct the 2" respondent to widen the road on either side of the existing road equally as agreed in the meeting held on 17.06.2015.” 2. The petitioner herein has purchased a plot admeasuring to an extent of 298 square yards in Sy.No.307/1, bearing door No.25-2-8 of Bondilagudem new colony, Vizianagaram vide registered document No.647 of 2009 dated 21.03.2009 and thereafter, has obtained approval from the concerned authority for construction of a house in the said plot, subsequent to which the petitioner has also constructed a building and is in peaceful possession of the same. 3. While so, the 2nd respondent has instructed the petitioner and as well as the neighbors who are abutting to the widening of the road to attend his office on 17.06.2015. On such, the petitioner and as well as the others have attended the office of the 2nd respondent and requested the 2nd respondent to widen the road on either side equally. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued Roc.No.1046/2015-G1, dated 02.07.2015 stating that the petitioner has to surrender 48 square yards as it gets affected in the road widening activity and the petitioner has also given consent for the same. 4. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent has marked the petitioner’s land for widening, but, to an extent of 60 square yards instead of 3 48 square yards, as per the consent of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in marking the petitioner’s property and trying to demolish the same admeasuring to an extent of 60 square yards in TS.No.307/1 bearing D.No.25-2-8 of Bondilagudem new colony, Vizianagaram without following the due process of law, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 18.08.2016, this Court has directed the respondent authorities not to demolish the petitioner’s property admeasuring an extent of 60 square yards in TS No.307/1 bearing door No.25-2-8 of Bondilagudem new colony, Vizianagaram pending disposal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation. 7. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation, dated 28.01.2025 wherein it is stated that the road widening from Dasannapeta Rythu Bazar to Kothapeta water tank is planned as per master plan-2021 in order to create a 100 feet wide road for the benefit of public. It is further stated that the petitioner’s property is affected to an extent of 48 square yards as per the said plan; as such a notice dated 02.07.2015 was issued to the petitioner requesting cooperation and consent for handing over the 48 square yards of the property. The petitioner’s property is located at a turning point which requires additional depth to maintain proper super elevation and minimize traffic issues. Despite several requests on behalf of the authorities, the petitioner has refused to cooperate and has expressed unwillingness. Accordingly, the petitioner has fenced the affected property with barbed wire and has planted trees, retaining the possession of the area and has caused inconvenience to traffic and public. 4 8. It is further stated that the said road/area is a major one connecting Vizianagaram to Nellimarla and Ramatheertham; it also connects several institutions including Government Medical College, Maharaja Medical College and Polytechnic College. The occupation of the petitioner in the said property is obstructing the free flow of traffic, pedestrian movement and sanitation leading to public inconvenience. The entire stretch of the road widening and formation is complete, except near the petitioner’s property. It is affirmed that the respondent authorities would undertake the road widening activities by duly adhering to the due process contemplated under law. 9. It can be understood from the material available on record that the area in which the petitioner’s property is located is a major one and the said road connects Vizianagaram, Nellimarla and Ramatheertham along with several other institutions. The entire stretch of the road widening and formation has been completed, except near the petitioner’s property. As admitted by the 2nd respondent in the instructions, the total extent of the land of the petitioner that is affected in the process of road widening is only 48 square yards. But, the petitioner alleges that the respondent authorities have marked the property for a total extent of 60 square yards instead of 48 square yards. However, it can also be seen that the respondents themselves have admitted that they would adhere to the due process of law while undertaking the activity of the widening of the road near the petitioner’s property. The respondent shall not try to demolish the petitioner’s property admeasuring to an extent of 60 square yards when the consent they have obtained from the petitioner is only for 48 square yards. 10. 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 respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over his property in TS.No.307/1 bearing door No.25-2-8 of Bondilagudem 5 new colony, Vizianagaram, beyond the extent of 48 square yards for which he has submitted his consent, without following due process of law. 11. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.02.2025 Gss