1 APHC010855252015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 253/2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent begs to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the order made in W.P.No.24376 of 2004, dt.27-10-2014 passed by his LORDSHIP SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARARAO Between: 1. THE ANANTAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. (FORMERLY THE ANANTAPUR MUNICIPALITY) ...APPELLANT AND 1. M.PADMAVATHAMMA, W/O.LATE VENKATARATNAM @ VENKARATNAMAIAH 2. M.VENU GOPAL, S/O.LATE VENKATARATNAM @ VENKATARTANAMAIAH, 3. M.JAYA PRAKASH, S/O.LATE VENKATARATNAM @ VENKATARATNAMAIAH, 4. M.LAXMI NARAYANA, W/O.LATE VENKATRATNAM @ VENKATARATNAMAIAH 5. M.SATYANARAYANA, S/O.LATE VENKATARATNAM @ VENKATARATNAMAIAH 6. B.NAGALAXMI, W/O.B.ASHOK KUMAR 7. M.RAMANA, W/O.LATE VANKATARATNAM @ VENKATARATNAMAIAH (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT H.NO.22/55, VUKKALAM STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT) 8. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 9. M.J.SAROJAMMA, W/O.M.V.J.GUPTA, AGE MAJOR, R/O.H.NO.8/140/A1 AND NEW NO.8/25, COURT ROAD, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WAMP 1039 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 1 to Condone the delay of ''145''days in filling the above writ appeal against the order made in W.P.No.24367 of 2004 dt:27-10-2014 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2015(WAMP 65350 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the order made in W.P.No.24367 of 2004 dt 27-10-2014, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY (SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. CKR ASSOCIATES 4. P SAI PRASAD 5. ELEVATED AS JUDGE CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: 01.07.2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 27.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.24376 of 2004, the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition preferred this intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 1 2. For convenience, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to with their status in writ petition. 3. The contents of writ petition, in brief, are that: (a) The husband of the first petitioner purchased extents of Ac.0.66 cents and Ac.0.94 cents of land in Sy.No.1948/1 and 1950/1 respectively situated within the limits of Ananthapur Municipality through a registered sale deed dated 28.05.1971. Apart from the said land, he also purchased some more land and divided the same into plots along with the adjacent lands owned by respective owners. He died intestate on 14.02.1994 leaving the petitioners as his legal heirs. The second respondent proposed to lay 80 feet road connecting Subhash road which is previously called as Ballary Road to Feeder Road running through the aforesaid property belonging to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent without initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and paying compensation sought to lay road and hence the petitioners submitted a representation seeking payment of compensation or in the alternative, to allot land in lieu of acquiring their land for the purpose of laying road. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioners got issued a legal notice through their counsel on 01.08.2004 demanding payment of compensation. The 2nd respondent sent reply on 29.09.2004 declining payment of compensation on the ground that the husband of the first petitioner along with six other owners, in whose plots, the proposed road is sought to be laid, volunteered to forego the same, on the 1 condition that they would be granted permission to construct commercial complex to which all them are co-owners and also enclosed a copy of letter dated 19.09.1998 alleged to have been addressed by the GPA holder of the first petitioner and other owners of the plots to the respondents giving their consent for laying the proposed 80 feet road without seeking payment of compensation. (b) The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that it is not a newly proposed road and it is an existing 80 feet road for the last 6 years. The said road is also shown in the plans submitted by the petitioners and got approved by the second respondent on 27.10.2000. (c) Similarly, the 2nd respondent filed counter stating that it is not newly proposed road and that 80 feet road was already existing for the last 15 years and the same was also shown in the plan submitted by one of the petitioners and got approved by the 2nd respondent for construction of commercial complex by the petitioners and their partners on western side and in the part of the suit schedule property. Since the petitioners and their co- owners submitted sworn gift deeds for handing over their sites for 80 feet master plan road on eastern and southern sides of their proposed and approved commercial complex, they are not eligible for payment of compensation. In view of the same prayed to dismiss the writ petition. (d) After considering the above submissions, learned single judge allowed the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to verify the record and 1 take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, for payment of compensation to the petitioners for the land affected in laying road from Subash Road to Railway feeder road covering Plot No.6 and 13 belonging to the petitioners and further directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Assailing the said order, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition had preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri P.Vengala Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the appellant and CKR associates, learned counsel for R2 to R7. 5. Learned standing counsel for the appellant herein (2nd respondent in the writ petition) while reiterating the grounds of appeal and contents of the counter affidavit submitted that, the learned Single judge erred in deciding the disputed facts i.e., the rightful ownership of the Plot bearing No.6 & 13. He further submitted that, while allowing the writ petition, the learned single judge failed to note that the writ petitioners along with other owners submitted their willingness to lay the subject road and now claiming compensation as if they have not submitted any willingness. Hence, prayed to allow writ appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and justifying the order of the learned Single Judge contended that, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition on the valid grounds, as such needs no interference. The appellant has not raised any valid ground warranting the interference of 1 this Court and the writ appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 8. The 2nd respondent/appellant on reply dated 29.09.2004 stated that the site for laying 80 feet road was voluntarily left while obtaining the approved building plan by 7 owners, including the husband of the 1st petitioner and further they gave GPA to one Aswarthanarayana Gupta for getting approval of the building plan and expressed their willingness to hand over the road affected portion voluntarily. The learned single judge had rightly pointed out that a portion of Plot No.5 is covered by the proposed 80 feet road on the eastern side and even if it is assumed that the consent extends to part of Plot No.5, there is no specific consent given by husband of 1st petitioner in respect of Plot Nos.6 and 13, for which compensation is now claimed for laying 80 feet road. Further, it is admitted that the 80 feet road to the eastern side of the building was laid recently and does not exist at the time of obtaining building permission. 9. Also, the learned Single Judge has rightly raised that, in the absence of any consent given by the legal heirs of husband of 1st petitioner (deceased) for surrendering these plots and Plot Nos.6 and 13 for the proposed laying of 80 feet road, the understanding of the 2nd respondent that the owners who obtained building permission gave consent for laying 80 feet road is 1 untenable. Further, there is no specific consent from the owners with regard to that area. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the said fact and allowed the writ petition. The appellant has not raised any valid ground warranting the interference of this Court and the writ appeal deserves dismissal. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J BRS