Mudunuri Saraswathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/10846/2025 · 2025-04-29
Nyapathy Vijay
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44394 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44394 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[3460 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -r..- PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJA WRIT PETITION NO: 10846 OF ?n9i;
:: AMARAVATI Between: Mudunuri Saraswathi, W/o Surya Narayana Raju House wife, R/o H.No.2-4-6, Saraswathi Town, West Godavari District. age about 84 years, Occ Nilayam, Sivaraopet, Bhimavaram ...PETITIONER AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Principai Secretary, I Administration and Urban Deveiopment, Veiagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Bhimavaram Municipality,, Rep. by its Commissioner Bhimavaram Town, West Godavari District. Muncipal at ...RESPONDENTS of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution an appropriate Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus of the respondents in more declaring the action issuing the impugned Notice No.U.C. NO.01WPRS-31, dated 27-03-2025 and trying to demolish thereby property admeasuring 16 cents in Revenue Village, Komarada Road, West Godavari District dispossess the petitioner from her RS.No.87/9, situated at Rayala m within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality illegal, arbitrary and violation of , as principles of natural justice and demolish thereby not to property admeasuring 16 cents in RS.No.87/9, situated at Rayalam Revenue Village, Komarada Road, Within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality, West Godavari District consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her
lA 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 demolish thereby not to dispossess the petitioner from her property admeasuring 16 y2 cents in RS.No.87/9, situated at Rayalam Revenue Village, Komarada Road, within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner:
SRI. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
APHC010205812025 , IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 1Q84fi/7n7f; [3460] Between:
1.MUDUNURI SARASWATHI, W/0 SURYA NARAYANA OCC HOUSE WIFE RAJU, AGE R/0 H.NO.2-4-6, BHIMAVARAM TOWN ABOUT 84 YEARS SARASWATHI NILAYAM, SIVARAOPET WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2.THE BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AT BHIMAVARAM TOWN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PRINCIPAL URBAN MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KVL NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following:
2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY W.P.N0.1QS46 of VIJAY
ORDER: The present writ petition i IS filed declaring the action of the respondents U.C.NO.01/WPRS-31, dated 27.03.2025 in issuing the impugned Notice No. and trying to demolish therey dispossess the petitioner from her property at Rayalam Revenue Village, Municipality, West Godavari admeasuring 16 % cents in RS.No.87/9, situated Komarada Road within the limits of Bhimavaram District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The impugned notice iIS only a provisional 209, 212 of ARM Act 90(1) ofAPMR&UDA Act,
order and issued under 1965 and under Section
2016. This writ petition provisional notice. However Section 228 (1 & 2) r/w Section 89 (1 & 2) r/w Section 82 has been filed based the provisional notice is merely a show arise only after the confirmation on the issuance of the i as cause notice, the cause of action
order is passed. Therefore, will the writ petition is premature.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition iIS dismissed. No order as to costs, petitions if any shall stand closed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous Sd/-U.SRl DEVI assistan;[ regIvSTRAR I ION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SE' To
1. One CC to SRI. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCS to GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] .8 Thrao r' DEVAP ,High Court
HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025
ORDER Of WP.No.10846 of 2025 \Cf\ Im} 0 7 OCT 2025 O rrentSectio DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH NO COSTS