APHC010038432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1980/2025 Between: Gadusukuti Siva Jyothi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly 2 and 3 in high handedly demolished the compound wall of the Petitioners property at D. No. 67-11-1/10, Lalbahaddur Nagar, Revenue Ward No. 29, Kakinada without any notice and further restricting the Petitioner to enter into the schedule property despite knowing the fact that a civil litigation is pending between the Petitioner and her neighbor vide OS No. 498 of 2024 in IV Additional JFC Magistrate Court, Kakinada and OS No 527 of 2024 in I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in contravention of the Municipal bye-laws besides being motivated and at the behest of the unofficial 4th and 5th Respondents and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to conduct a detailed survey to the scheduled property and issue…” 2. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the property in D.No.67- 11-1/10, Lalbahadur Nagar, Revenue Ward No.29, Kakinada which was gifted to her by her husband vide document No.14343/2023 on 04.10.2023 wherein, the petitioner has constructed a compound wall. While so, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 made complaints alleging that the petitioner’s property is a municipal road and not a private land. As such, the petitioner filed suit before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada seeking permanent injunction against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 subsequent to which, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed another suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner vide O.S.No.9 of 2024 before the Vacation District judge, Rajamahendravaram which was subsequently transferred to Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the said suit number was changed as O.S.no.572 of 2024. 3. When the respondent Nos.5 and 6 made several complaints against the petitioner, the petitioner vide representation dated 04.11.2024 has approached the 2nd respondent complaining against the unofficial respondents, but, no steps have been initiated pursuant to the same. As such, the petitioner has again submitted a representation dated 11.11.2024 to the 2nd respondent requesting to conduct re-survey, pursuant to which, the 3rd respondent has reported vide Rc.No.6571/2024-G1, dated 19.11.2024 stating that as per LP.No.21/91 a 80 feet road exists in the said area and that further action would be initiated after the final verdict of the civil court. Thereafter, a detailed survey was also ordered as requested by the petitioner. 4. While the matter stood thus, on 13.12.2024, the respondent Nos.3 and 4, without conducting any survey as stated hereinabove and without issuing any notice, have highhandedly demolished the compound wall constructed by the petitioner in the schedule property. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also restricting the petitioner from entering into the schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioner and the unofficial respondents have filed two suits vide O.S.Nos.9 of 2024 and 572 of 2024 as against each other on the file of Additional Junior Civil judge, Kakinada. Pending the same, in pursuance to the representation made by the petitioner on 11.11.2024, requesting the 2nd respondent to conduct re-survey, the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.6655/2024, dated 19.11.2024 stated that since the disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents is pending before the Court below, further action would be initiated as per the final outcome of the said civil suits, however, has stated that a note was sent for conducting a detailed survey as per the request of the petitioner. However, without conducting the said survey and without even issuing a notice to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have demolished the compound wall of the petitioner in the subject property. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.R.s. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs1. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the property in D.No.67-11-1/10, Lalbahadur Nagar, Revenue Ward No.29, Kakinada, without following due process of law. 9. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 29.01.2025 GSS