1 APHC010363832021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21997/2021 Between: 1. VALLAPUNENI RAMBABU, S/O. VALLAPUNENI JOJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/ O. FLAT NO. 1-B, RAM S VIHAR, 3RD LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, PATTABHIPURAM (GUNTUR), GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in making efforts for dispossessing the petitioner from his property of vacant land which is purchased by way of regd. sale deed vide its. no 434/2011 on the file of SRO Koritapadu dated 29.01.2011 to an extent of 526- 6 Sq Yards in Survey No 14/A 12 situated in D-No 4-5-26/34, Koritipadu village of Guntur Dist, Andhra Pradesh without following the due procedure established by the law is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Article 14, 2 15,16,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to take or initiative any coercive steeps against the petitioners property to an extent of 526- 6 Sq Yards situated in D-No 4-5-26/34, Koritipadu village of Guntur Dist, Andhra Pradesh without following the due procedure established by the law IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners vacant land to an extent of 526-6 Sq Yards situated in Survey No 14/A 12, D-No 4-5-26/34, Koritipadu village of Guntur Dist, Andhra Pradesh without following the due procedure established by the law and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to receive the counter copy on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and may 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 pleased to receive the Reply copy on record by allowing the leave Petition in WP No. 21997 of 2021 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3 HN, J W.P.No.21997_2021 ORDER: 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of a plot admeasuring 526-6 square yards in Survey No.14/A. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has assessed the property for tax and has been collecting taxes for the said property regularly. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s vendors acquired title by virtue of an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 04.02.2006. 2. It is submitted that the vendor’s vendor possessed title deeds dating back to the year 1967. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent is now attempting to dispossess the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner is in occupation of a part of an open space. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent cannot unilaterally decide that the petitioner is in occupation of an open space/park without conducting a survey or calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation with regard to the possession and enjoyment of the said plot. 3. It is also submitted that even a trespasser, before eviction, would be entitled to a notice before any attempt of dispossession is made by the competent authorities. In the present case, it is stated that no such notice has been issued, and the petitioner apprehends dispossession in a high-handed manner. 4 4. The learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the contrary, submits that the subject property forms part of the layout in L.P.No.32/1969, and that the subject property is a public park/open space, as per the said approved layout, which is being maintained by the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed O.S.No.52 of 2013 seeking the relief of declaration, and the Principal District Judge, Guntur, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 25.11.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the order of dismissal of the suit. As such, the findings of the learned District Judge denying the claim of the plaintiff over the title to the plaint schedule property remain unchallenged. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the open spaces of any layout vest with the Municipality, and it is for the Municipality to maintain and protect them. At any rate, the petitioner cannot claim ownership over an open space which forms part and parcel of the approved layout. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that O.S.No.52 of 2013 was filed seeking the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for consequential delivery of possession. An alternative relief was sought for directing the 2nddefendant therein (vendor of the petitioner) to create a warranty of title given to the petitioner under a document executed by the 2nd defendant dated 5 29.01.2011 and a consequential injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 8. The learned Principal District Judge framed an issue to determine whether the 2nd respondent is a trespasser and is liable to deliver vacant possession. The District Judge held that the 2nd respondent is not a trespasser and that the subject property vested with the Municipality. 9. The copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.52 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner along with the reply affidavit. The petitioner had claimed delivery of possession in the suit as a consequential relief and also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. Both the prayers are contrary to each other. The petitioner in the writ petition also claims that the respondents are making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from his property. The schedule of property in the suit and the subject property of the writ petition are one and the same. 10. The petitioner, on one hand, claimed the relief of declaration of title and delivery of possession before the Principal District Judge. The suit was dismissed on merits. On the other hand, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner. 11. The claim of the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court, as the petitioner is neither in possession of the property nor does he have title to the 6 same. By virtue of a registered document, the petitioner cannot claim possession when the possession is admittedly with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has the alternate remedy of prosecuting his remedy against his vendor separately. The same was observed by the learned District Judge while dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner. The judgments relied on by the petitioner would be of no relevance to the facts of this case. 12. The petitioner is admittedly not in possession of the property, as determined in O.S.No.52 of 2013. As such, the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:15.09.2025 NKA 7 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21997 of 2021 Date: 15.09.2025 NKA