Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41763 (AP)

Shantilal Jain, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/30004/2025 · 2025-11-02

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010572232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30004/2025 Between: 1. SHANTILAL JAIN,, S/O.PEERCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O.DOOR.NO.5-98-20, MAIN ROAD BRODIPET GUNTUR-2, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDING,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARLU PALADUGU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent Guntur Municipal Corporation in threatening to interfere with or demolish the subject properties i.e., buildings bearing D.No.5-98-20, Main Road, Brodipet and D.No.6-19-105, Arundelpet Main Road, Guntur without issuing statutory notice or following the procedure prescribed under law as illegal arbitrary and violative of Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.13134 of 2025 and requested to pass a similar order in this writ petition also. 4. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this writ petition is also disposed of directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 5. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order in W.P.No.13134 of 2025 to the order in the present writ petition. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 03.11.2025 SR