-1- W.P. No.29663 OF 2025 Date of order:31.10.2025 APHC010574152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 29663/2025 Between: B.chaithanya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GURAVAIAH T Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.29663 OF 2025 Date of order:31.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.29663 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed action of the 3rd respondent in trying to demolish the residential building bearing D.Nos.22-248 and 22-249 situated in Sy.No.106/1 and 106/2 of Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor District, belongs to the petitioner under the guise that the petitioner had constructed the said building by encroaching over the land admeasuring 51.44 square meters, which was gifted by the petitioner to the 4th respondent for utilization for expansion of road for public purpose. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had constructed a residential building as per the sanctioned plan within the permissible boundaries leaving a part the land admeasuring 51.44 square meters. In this regard, the 3rd respondent issued a notice on 06.06.2025 calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why the unauthroised construction encroaching on the land gifted in favour of the municipal corporation should not be removed. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a reply along with sanctioned plan and clarified that the petitioner has not encroached on the land belongs to the 4th respondent. It is also submitted that when the plan was sanctioned, the road obtaining to the petitioner’s property -3- W.P. No.29663 OF 2025 Date of order:31.10.2025 was 80 feet and it is now proposed to widen the same by additional 20 feet. It is further submitted that the respondents can resort for widening of road for public purpose subject to following due process of law and can acquire the petitioner’s property if any required for the purpose of road widening. 4. The learned standing appearing for the 3rd respondent, on written instructions, submits that inspection conducted by the concerned authority had determined that the petitioner had encroached on the property which was gifted by the petitioner for the purpose of road widening and as such the impugned notice was issued. 5. Considering the submissions of the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent, it is evident that the respondent authorities have not conducted any survey in the presence of the petitioner to determine the extent of encroachment if any made by the petitioner. 6. On these considerations, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to conduct a proper survey by deputing the competent town surveyor. The said town surveyor shall conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioner and demarcate the extent of the construction by correlating with the sanctioned plan and also demarcate the extent of encroachment if any made by the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that in the event the authorities intend to widen the road and such widening would require acquisition of the petitioner’s property, -4- W.P. No.29663 OF 2025 Date of order:31.10.2025 the respondent authorities shall have to follow the procedure provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV