1 HN, J W.P.No.27782_2014 APHC010088862014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27782/2014 Between: 1. BOMMIREDDYPALLI LAKSHMI KAMESWARI,, W/O.LATE SEETHARAMANJANEYULU, OCC:RETD.GOVT EMPLOYEE, R/O.H.NO.27-7-14/1 FLAT NO.4, SUNEETHANILAYAM, 4TH LINE, 1ST CROSS ROAD, KANNAVARITHOTA,GUNTUR-522004 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT,HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, GUNTUR TOWN, MUNICIPAL CORPORAION OF GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP ...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 toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct the respodnents laying of the road over the petitioner land registered sale deed bearing documents No.3923/79 dated 9.7.79 for th land admeasuring 226.6 sq.yds in Municipal premises No.5-87-50 with assessment No.5126 in ward No.18 block no.28 in D.No.5/1 patta No.956 in TS.No.1988 and through another document No.2253/1980 dated 11.4.80 for the land admeasuring 312 sq.yards and is ilegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and violation of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to remove the illegal, road laid down by the respondents ovser the petitioners land in between the road/lines 6&7 of Chandramouli Nagar, guntur declaring it as against to the master plans vide L.P.No.116/65 dated 9.12.65 & L.P.No.97/64 dated 1.5.64 without interfering into the private properties by 2 HN, J W.P.No.27782_2014 making convenient to the petitioner in enjoying her property to the extent of the petitioners land covered in the road and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 34788 OF 2014 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 to remove the illegal, road laid down by the respondents over the petitioners land registered under the sale deed bearing documents No.3923/79 dated 9.7.79 for th land admeasuring 226.6 sq.yds in Municipal premises No.5-87-50 with assessment No.5126 in ward No.18 block no.28 in D.No.5/1 patta No.956 in TS.No.1988 and through another document No.2253/1980 dated 11.4.80 for the land admeasuring 312 sq.yards in between the road/lines 6&7 of Chandramouli Nagar, guntur declaring it as against to the master plans vide L.P.No.116/65 dated 9.12.65 & L.P.No.97/64 dated 1.5.64 without interfering into the private properties by making convenient to the petitioner in enjoying her property to the extent of the petitioners land covered in the road and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 12347 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 2016(WPMP 11686 OF 2016 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 Expedite the Writ Petition for hearing and disposal of the main case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3 HN, J W.P.No.27782_2014 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the high-handed action of the respondent authorities in laying a CC road over the petitioner’s property without the consent of the petitioner and without compensating the petitioner for the land over which the road was laid. It is submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land admeasuring 226.6 square yards and 312 square yards, having purchased the said extents vide registered sale deeds. 2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.350 of 1996, aggrieved by the interference of the official respondents in the possession and enjoyment of the said property, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed, and possession was handed over to the petitioner after filing an E.P. before the competent Court. While things stood thus, land admeasuring 70 square yards was handed over to the petitioner after the petitioner sold the remaining extent of 467.7 square yards. Therefore, the respondents, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without compensating the petitioner, laid a road over the said 70 square yards of land belonging to the petitioner. 3. Though the petitioner submitted representations seeking compensation, nothing transpired in that regard. It is submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and has become a victim of the high-handed action of the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner is unwell and is suffering from a terminal illness. 4 HN, J W.P.No.27782_2014 4. The learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 submits that a detailed counter has been filed and states that the subject property of the petitioner is situated between L.P.No.116/65 and L.P.No.97/64. It is submitted that both layouts relate to one plan and that there existed a 40-feet gravel road, over which the respondents laid a cement concrete road. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not raise any objections at the time of laying of the cement road and that, as per the Master Plan of the Guntur Municipal Corporation vide G.O.Ms.No.688, dated 31.12.2006, the existing gravel road connects the 80-feet Laxmipuram Road. It is also submitted that O.S.No.350 of 1996 was decreed ex parte and that the petitioner was put in possession of the property. 5. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not approached the Commissioner seeking compensation so far. That apart, the petitioner would have to get a survey conducted for demarcating the extent of land taken over for the purpose of laying the road and that, in the event the petitioner approaches respondent No.2, the said respondent shall get a survey conducted and determine the extent of land, if any, over which the public road has been laid. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record. 7. The respondent No.2 has admittedly laid a road over 70 square yards of land belonging to the petitioner. The said land was handed over to the 5 HN, J W.P.No.27782_2014 petitioner filing an E.P before the competent Court. The ground taken by the respondent No.2 that the CC road was laid over an existing 40-feet gravel cannot be substantiated without respondent No.2 having the legal right to lay a CC road over the said property. The respondent No.2 could have laid the road only after acquiring the land from the property owner or after reaching an understanding with the property owner by paying compensation. 8. In absence of the respondent authorities either compensating the landowner or acquiring the land under Section 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, the act of respondent No.2 in laying a CC road over the petitioner’s land clearly indicates high-handedness in taking over the petitioner’s property without following due process under Section 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, or adequately compensating the petitioner the CC road would have to be removed and the land would have to be restored to the petitioner. 9. However, considering that the road has been in use for a considerable period of time, a direction to restore the land to the petitioner would cause inconvenience to the general public. In view of these considerations, respondent No.2 is required to determine the compensation due payable to the petitioner and pay the compensation for the 70 square yards of land. It is made clear that, though the road was laid in the year 1996 and the petitioner has been dispossessed of her land since then, respondent No.2 shall 6 HN, J W.P.No.27782_2014 compensate the petitioner by duly taking into account the prevailing market value for determining the compensation due payable to the petitioner. 10. With these observations, the present writ petition is allowed-in-part, making it clear that respondent No.2 shall quantify the compensation due payable for having taking over land admeasuring 70 square yards belonging to the petitioner and pay the compensation within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:23.12.2025 NKA 7 HN, J W.P.No.27782_2014 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27782 of 2014 Date: 23.12.2025 NKA