SHAIK JAHANGEER BASHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WP/26978/2025 · 2025-12-01
Harinath N
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 42142 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 42142 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010524282025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26978/2025 Between:
1. SHAIK JAHANGEER BASHA, S/O. G.MAHABOOB SAHEB AGED 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 17-1-292-88, NIRMALANANDA NAGAR, R.V.NAIDU COLONY, ANANTAPURAM TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ANANTAPURAMU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ANANTAPURAMU,ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KAMALA NAGAR,
ANANTAPURAM TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or orders directions, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents 3 and 4
2
without following due process of law and without any notice directed the petitioner to evict the petition schedule property situated in survey No. 164/3A Anantapuram-Gootty Road which was adjacent to 4th respondent land within the Anantapur Municipality limits, Anantapur District is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the constitutional Law, consequently directing the 4th respondent not to interfere in the above petition schedule and also be pleased to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents not to cause any sort of interference or obstruction in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property situated in survey No. 164/3A Anantapuram-Gootty Road which was adjacent to 4th respondent’s land within the Anantapur Municipal limits, Anantapur District pending disposal of the writ petition and also be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In
2. N RANGA REDDY
3.
GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following:
3
Order:-
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in trying to evict the petitioner from the property adjacent to the land of the 4th respondent. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has been continuing the iron scrap business for the last 15 years and has been in occupation of the property abutting the land of the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner is also paying taxes to the 3rd respondent for the said premises. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, upon written instructions, submits that the petitioner had erected a temporary shed and the 3rd respondent had levied a temporary encroachment tax. It is also submitted that levying of encroachment tax would not confer any title on the petitioner and that the 3rd respondent had removed the shed during their drive for removing unauthorized encroachments on the road margins. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner had erected a temporary shed in an unauthorized manner, thereby restricting access to the petitioner’s property. 5. Recording the submissions and considering the written instructions placed before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the subject shed was removed, nothing further is
4
required to be adjudicated on merits as the petitioner is not able to demonstrate title over the property. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N
02.12.2025 PNS