1 APHC010527372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27106/2025 Between: 1. C VIKRAM SAI, S/O. C. SAI RAMALINGA REDDY, AGED 53 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 1, MAHALAKSHMI NIVAS, SAI NAGAR, THUMMALAGUNTA BY-PASS ROAD TIRUPATHI - 517502. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIONAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT A. P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CHITTOOR 5. THE CHITTOOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHUDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, CHITTOOR ...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, more particularly one like a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in the acts of the forcible dispossession of the petitioner's possession in the private 2 patta land located in Sy. 285/1 of Kattamanchi Village of Chittoor Mandal, for the purpose of laying a public road, without following the procedure of law as enunciated under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice and also in violation of the petitioner'sfundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 14, 21, and 300-A of Indian Constitution and consequently restrain the 4th Respondent from laying a public road in the petitioners private property and to 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 stay all proceedings of the 4th Respondent or anybody acting in his name from interfering with the private property belonging to the petitioner’s family in Sy. 285/1 in Kattamanchi Village of Chittoor Mandal in any manner, pending the disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOORA VENKATA SAINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Municipality, Administration & Urban Development, and Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the action of the 4th respondent in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from his private patta land located in Sy. No. 285/1 of Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor Mandal, for the purpose of laying a public road, without following the due procedure of law as enunciated under 3 the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the instant Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the subject land is required for a public purpose, the respondents are at liberty to take recourse to law after paying compensation and acquiring the property in accordance with the Act, however the respondents are attempting to high- handedly take possession of the petitioner’s land without any notice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others1. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4th respondent, placed before the Court a copy of the instructions received by him in the case. A perusal of the same reflects that the respondent Corporation did not attempt to encroach upon any private land, nor has entered the petitioner’s property. The officials of the respondent Corporation are carrying out a survey to ascertain the condition of the road and the alignment, with the sanctioned Mater Plan. 6. It is further reflects that at any point of time, if any portion of the petitioner’s land is required for public use, the respondent Corporation would 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347 4 follow the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and take possession of the land only after completing the acquisition process. In the said process, if any survey is to be conducted, the same shall not be construed as dispossession by the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to follow the due procedure contemplated under law, in the event the subject property is required for any public purpose. Further, the respondents shall issue prior notice to the petitioner if any survey is proposed to be conducted in respect of the subject property. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:26.09.2025 MVK 5 596 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27106/2025 Date:26.09.2025 MVK