APHC010574322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1135 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3552] Syed Azam ...Appellant Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. S. M. Subhani appearing vice Mr. Masalegar Hidayathulla Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 28th October, 2025. Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order, dated 17.10.2025, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.14935 of 2025. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: 2. A Notice, dated 28.08.2024, was issued by the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, requiring the petitioner to provide ownership documents of the shops bearing Nos.46/46, 46/48, 46/45, 46/47, 46/50, 46/50-A and 46/51, covering an extent of 2088.40 sq. ft. as also an empty space to an extent of 1274.52 sq. ft. The petitioner was informed that the construction in question was in violation of the Master Plan and causing traffic 2 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1135_2025 hazard and therefore sought to demolish the said structures. The petitioner was also informed that compensation would be paid for the demolished structures in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017. 3. This Notice was responded to by the petitioner by virtue of a Reply Notice, dated 04.06.2025, wherein the stand of the petitioner was that the land was required to be acquired and compensation ought to be paid in accordance with law. 4. Objections, dated 25.07.2025, were filed to the Notice which was issued by the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, which after being considered, resulted in the order, dated 11.08.2025, whereby the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, in exercise of powers vested under Sections 405, 406, and 461 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, held the subject shops as encroachments with further directions to remove the said shops. 5. The Notice further specifically pointed out that, during enquiry, neither the Mutavalli nor the occupants of the shops had produced any title deeds or ancillary records to justify that the structures were either owned or were Waqf properties. The Notice also further specified that land acquisition proceedings could be initiated when undisputed title was established by a claimant, and that the seven shops which were sought to be demolished were nothing but an encroachment, and therefore the petitioner was directed to remove the 3 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1135_2025 seven shops voluntarily, failing which, he stood informed that the structures in question would be removed in accordance with law and the rules in force. 6. In the aforementioned backdrop and even before the Notice under Sections 405, 406 and 461 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, came to be issued, the petitioner proceeded to file W.P.No.14935 of 2025, in which the petitioner besides challenging the Notice, dated 28.08.2024, sought a Mandamus to the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, before acquiring or demolishing the property in question. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, dated 17.10.2025, the Interlocutory Application filed along with W.P.No.14935 of 2025, bearing I.A.No.1 of 2025, seeking stay of the Notice, dated 28.08.2024, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, was dismissed. 7. The learned Single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order impugned held that the petitioner had not so far produced any documents before the authorities or before the Court which could establish their right title and interest over the land measuring 4.75 cents forming part and parcel of Sy.No.227/2 and for that purpose it directed that the petitioner be granted an opportunity to submit the title documents, if any available with them for consideration by the respondent authorities. 8. It was noticed that the issue which was coming in the way of the petitioner from handing over the subject shops for road widening was the 4 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1135_2025 determination of eligibility for compensation. It was further noticed that the petitioner had expressed its willingness in writing on 10.09.2024. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge, while granting time to establish the claim for compensation based upon the title documents, ordered the removal of the subject shops to avoid further loss of lives and to avoid accidents on the road, which was sought to be widened at the relevant spot. This was done in the interest of public safety and for resolving the traffic issues. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant does not deny that by way of a written communication, dated 10.09.2024, willingness was expressed for permitting the road widening and removal of the seven shops, however, it was stated that it was based on the condition that alternate Government land would be made available. For purposes of reference, the Communication, dated 10.09.2024, is reproduced hereunder: “The Hon‟ble Municipal Commissioner and the Elders of the Shah Sab Masjid, Budawarapeta near Medical College had a meeting on 10.09.2024 in Municipal Office. The Municipal Office has issued Notice to the Elders of Mosque Shah Sab Masjid, Budhawarapeta area to remove the encroached 7 number of shops and removal of these 7 number of shops which consists of 5 cents of land but on a condition of providing any alternate Government land for what extent of land effected on road widening. For that we are requesting you to consider the proposal of providing alternate site.” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that property in question was in fact Waqf property and had been mentioned in the Survey Commissioner's Report as also was notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette 5 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1135_2025 and therefore, would submit that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge was unsustainable. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. The learned Single Judge clearly came to a conclusion that the petitioner - appellant had failed to establish his right and title over the land in question for which an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit documents to lay a basis for claiming compensation. It also appears that the appellant had earlier expressed its willingness for removal of the shops in question subject to the Government allotting an alternate site. While the issue for allotment of an alternate site may still be pursued by the appellant, the issue is as to whether the Municipal Corporation can be prevented from exercising its right of removal of the structure, which according to them is nothing but an encroachment over the land which in any case is stated to be different from the land which finds a mention in the Survey Commissioner‟s Report. It can also be seen that one of the reasons for the learned Single Judge to pass the order impugned was based upon the assertion of the respondents that the unauthorized shops were standing in the midst of the road which led to several accidents on the spot. The learned Single Judge also had noticed the stand of the official respondents that recently a young medico studying in 6 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1135_2025 the 3rd year MBBS Course in Kurnool had met with a fatal accident next to the shops in question. It was in that context, keeping in view the element of public safety and to avoid future accidents and for proper regulation of traffic, that the learned Single Judge had refused any interim relief to the extent of preventing the demolition of these structures in question. In our opinion, there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. Admittedly, the challenge before us is only an order passed in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.14935 of 2025. The scope of interference by an Appellate Court against the exercise of discretion came to be considered by the Apex Court in Wander Limited and another vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1, it was held: “The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have 1 (1990) Supp. SCC 727 7 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1135_2025 taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion.” The aforementioned principle of law has been reiterated in the case of Purshottam Vishandas Raheja and another vs. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja and others2. 14. Even otherwise, considering the stand of the Municipal Corporation that the structures were situate on a parcel of land, which was recorded as „Village Poramboke Site‟ was different from the one being claimed by the petitioner to be a part of the Survey Report and notified in the Gazette, we find no merit in the present Writ Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN 2 (2011) 6 SCC 73