APHC010691952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35444/2025 Between: 1. RAPETI APPALA NAIDU, , S/O. LATE VEERA SWAMY AGED 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION , R/O.H.NO.46-22-22, DONDAPARTHY, IOC PETROL BUNK, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. SURISETTI MANOHAR NAIDU,, S/O.SANNI BABU, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION , R/O.D.NO.54-5-38, ISUKATHOTA, H.B.COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, MGM CAPITAL BUILDING. GROUND FLOOR, BEHIND NTR VAIDYA SEVA TRUST, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRIT,522503. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM.-530002 4. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH-16), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM.-530002 2 5. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.-530001 6. THE CHIEF CITY PLANNING OFFICER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.-530001 7. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ZONE-I, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. -530001 8. THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYVMRDA, REP.BY.ITS CHAIRMAN UDYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530003. 9. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI.110001 ...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 in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in contemplating to dispossess the petitioners and commencing works on portions of petitioners' agricultural land totaling Ac. 6.31 cents in Sy. Nos. 6.31 cents in Sy. Nos. 31/IP, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4P, 31/5 at Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District for the proposed 100-ft Master Plan road from Boyapalem NH-16 Junction to Kapuluppada, without following statutory procedures, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013), and Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently Direct the Respondents to refrain from taking any coercive steps, including the acquisition of petitioners land, until the mandatory procedures and fair compensation and rehabilitation measures are provided as per law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 3 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 to refrain from taking any coercive steps, including the acquisition of petitioners’ land totaling Ac. 6.31 cents in Sy. Nos. 31/IP, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4P, 31/5 at Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, until the mandatory procedures and fair compensation and rehabilitation measures are provided as per law, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RENU CHAKRAVARTHY KANADAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and Sri S. Ganesh Babu, the learned Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent. 2. The petitioners are apprehending the dispossession by the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the agriculturists and their land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.31 cents in Sy.Nos.31/IP, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4P, 31/5 at Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District are identified by the respondent-authorities for laying a 100 feet master plan road from Boyapalem NH-16 Junction to Kapuluppada. 4. It is submitted that the petitioners would have to be adequately compensated for the land which is to be taken over by the respondents for laying the road. 5. It is submitted that the respondent-authorities have not issued any acquisition notice for acquiring the petitioners’ land for the purpose of road widening. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners are not coming in the way of developmental activity, but however, expect the respondent-authorities to 5 follow the due process of law for acquiring the petitioners’ property and compensate the petitioners for the land which was acquired. 7. Sri A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, on written instructions, submits that the 5th respondent has issued notice under Section 635 of GHMC Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioners to furnish the details of the ownership over their property and it is also submitted that the petitioners have been called upon to submit the relevant title documents for verification. 8. It is submitted that the petitioners have submitted D-Form pattas and after verification from the concerned Tahsildar, the respondent-authorities shall determine the eligibility of the compensation due payable to the petitioners. 9. Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities not to dispossess the petitioners, without following the due process of law. 10. It is also made clear that the respondent-authorities shall have to follow The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for compensating the petitioners or propose any other acceptable alternative to the petitioners, subject to the 6 petitioners complying with the requirements of establishing the petitioners’ title over the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N SCH 7 264 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Writ Petition No.35444 of 2025 Date: 19.12.2025 SCH