APHC010693882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36115/2025 Between: 1. ALAMURI SRINIVASARAO, S/O. LATE JAGANNADHARAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC- TECHNICIAN, STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM, R/O. D.NO.31-14-5/5, BSR RESIDENCY, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, SATHAVAHANA NAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-533501 2. VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIZIANAGARAM. VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT- 535001 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT-535001 ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in demolishing the structures in the property situated at Maharajupeta, South Ward No. 25, 2 Orugantivarithota, T.S.No. 531/1, old T.S.No. 531/P, D.No. 25-12-3, Present Assessment No. 1093064195, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, by forcefully entered without following the due process, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the Article, 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently directing not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner situated at Maharajupeta, South Ward No. 25, Orugantivarithota, T.S.No. 531/1, Old T.S.No. 531/P, D.No. 25-12-3, Present Assessment No. 1093064195, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and 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 2nd respondent dispose the petition dt; 11-11-2025 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. 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 high-handed actions of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner and demolish the structures of the petitioner’s property situated at Maharajupeta, South Ward No.25, Orugantivarithota, T.S. No.531/1, old T.S. No.531/P, D.No.25-12-3, present Assessment No.1093064195, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. It is submitted that the said property is an ancestral property, and the title is traced from 1939 onwards. However, the 2nd respondent has been trying to dispossess the petitioner and demolish the structures. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M. Krishna Rao, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on written instructions, submits that the respondents have received complaints from the neighboring residents on 08.11.2025 stating that some unknown persons had erected barbed-wire fencing across the road, thereby obstructing the free flow of traffic. It is submitted that on 10.11.2025 the Town Planning Staff of the 2nd respondent inspected the site and found that barbed-wire fencing was erected across the municipal road connecting the Master Plan 100-feet road. It also appeared to the Town Planning Staff that the poles and barbed wires were erected two days prior to the inspection. The enquiry did not reveal the names of the persons who erected the barbed-wire fencing. 4 4. It is also stated in the written instructions that the subject property is demarcated as a municipal road in the Town Survey block maps falling in Sy. No.531/1. It is also submitted that the respondent authority is not demolishing any lawful structures of the petitioner and that in the event the petitioner’s property is required for any public purposes, the respondent authority shall follow the due process of law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has never erected the fencing across the road and has not interfered with the road. 6. Recording the submissions, this writ petition is disposed of, making it clear to the respondent authority not to dispossess the petitioner from his property without following the due process of law and at the same time making it clear to the parties to the writ petition that the public roads shall be available for the public for ingress and egress and either of them shall not be permitted to erect any fencing or poles causing inconvenience to the general public. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 31.12.2025 PNS 5