APHC010527942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1066 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-25 [3552] Thimmalasetti Nalini ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. MSP Reddy representing Ms. V Baby Rani Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. Gudapati Lakshminarayana [SC for Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region] for R.2 Mr. P Hemachandra for R.4 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 24th November, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 10.09.2025, passed in WP.No.10763 of 2025. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that the construction raised by the petitioner over a plot of land was sought to be demolished by the municipal authorities without adopting due course of law. 3. The stand of the municipal authorities before the learned single Judge was that the petitioner had encroached upon the municipal land on the 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1066_2025 Eastern and Western sides covering an extent of 340 square feet and on the Western side an additional 72 square feet. A survey is stated to have been conducted in the presence of the petitioner and a report was prepared wherein everything was recorded in the presence of the petitioner. 4. It appears that the writ petitioner had also encroached upon approximately 38 Square Yards belonging to the grandfather of V. Sairam Yachendra, respondent No.4 in the present writ appeal. It is stated that a gift was made by the grandfather of respondent No.4 in favour of the 2nd respondent Municipality for purposes of constructing a bus shelter. Since the bus shelter was not constructed, this resulted in a civil proceedings in which finally respondent No.4 – Sairam Yachendra and others succeeded in AS.No.827 of 2003. The judgment and decree, dated 16.01.2003 passed in OS.No.89 of 1994 was accordingly set aside and respondent No.4 and others were held entitled to recovery of possession of the schedule property which otherwise formed the subject matter of the gift deed, dated 04.10.1968. The respondents therein i.e., the State and the municipality were directed to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to respondent No.4 and other decree holders within the prescribed period of four months. 5. It appears that pursuant to the orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in AS.No.827 of 2003 and even otherwise considering the 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1066_2025 fact that the appellant herein had encroached upon municipal land, steps were initiated to demolish the building raised by the appellant herein. 6. While it may be true that respondent No.4 in the present appeal as a successful decree holder was entitled to recover possession from the municipal authorities, that could be done in appropriate execution proceedings. 7. Apart from this, if there was any land which was otherwise encroached upon by the appellant herein, the recovery of possession could have been effected by adopting due course under the A.P. Municipalities Act of 1965. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for Venkatagiri Municipality states that appropriate notices would be served upon the appellant and the procedure as prescribed by law would be followed. 9. In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order impugned is accordingly set aside. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl