Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57005 (AP)

MOHAMMAD NASEEMA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/6951/2023 · 2025-11-23

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010135462023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6951/2023 Between: 1. MOHAMMAD NASEEMA BEGUM, W/O.MOHD.RIYAZULTABAIG AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. H.NO.23-11-6/3, SRIRAM NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM URBAN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MUNICIPALITY CORPORATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI , A.P. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE M R O, URBAN, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 6. THE CITY PLANNING OFFICER, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BOMMURU POLICE STATION EAST GODAVARI URBAN DISTRICT, A.P 2 HN,J W.P.No.6951 of 2023 8. SAYED ABDUL APSAR, S/O SAYED SILAR AGED 58 YEARS, OCC.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, R/O 87-3-5, WARD NO.15 RAHMATHNAGAR, RTC COMPLEX ROAD RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 9. SYED ABDUL NASIR, S/O.SYED SILAR AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. REAL ESTATE,R/O.87-5-1 WARD 15 RAHMATHNAGAR RTC COMPLEX ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST, A.P. 10. SHAIK AHMED GUM SHASHEED, S/O.HUSSAIN AGED 68 YEARS, OCC.RETIRED, R/O.87-4-1 RAHMATH NAGAR COLONY RTC COMPLEX ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P ...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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not demolishing the compound wall illegally occupied and constructed around the petitioner's Plot No.56 Door No.87-1-13RU in Sy.No.270 adm 166.66 Sq.Yds situated at Rahmathnagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P by the unofficial respondents No.8 to 10 is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01-9-2021 and 27.02.2023 by demolishing the compound wall around the petitioner's plot No.56 Door No.87- 1-13RU in Sy.No.270 adm 166.66 Sq.Yds situated at Rahmathnagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P in the interest of justice and to 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 direct the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01-9-202 and 27-02-2023 by demolishing the compound wall around the petitioner's plot No.56 Door No.87-1-13RU in Sy.No.270 adm 166.66 Sq.Yds situated at Rahmathnagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P in the interest of justice and to pass 3 HN,J W.P.No.6951 of 2023 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitionerin the W.P. No. 6951 of 2023 to file the reply counter affidavit of RespondentNo.8 to lOin the above Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V S K RAMA RAO 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 4. GP FOR REVENUE 5. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 4 HN,J W.P.No.6951 of 2023 The Court made the following Order: This present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the official respondents in not taking appropriate action against the unofficial respondents in not demolishing the compound wall illegally occupied and constructed around the petitioner’s Plot No.56, D.No.87-1-13RU in Sy.No.270 admeasuring 166.66 sq.yards at Rahmathnagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 2. It is submitted that the compound wall of the petitioner was demolished by the unofficial respondents and they have erected the tin sheets. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.09.2021 and 27.02.2023 seeking demolition of the tin sheets. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has not taken any action. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.8 to 10 relying upon the counter submits that the Plot Nos.53, 54, 55 and 56 were allotted to Masjid-E-Rehmath Sunni Society, Rehmath Nagar vide resolution No.123, dated 23.05.2011 and resolution No.124, dated 08.12.2011 that Masjid and Shadi Khanas’ were also proposed in the said property. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner is claiming title over the Plot No.56, whereas the Government has sanctioned an amount of Rs.67,37,453/- for construction of Shadi Khana in Plot Nos.55 and 56. 5 HN,J W.P.No.6951 of 2023 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that there appears to be title dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and they would have to approach the appropriate Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.8 to 10. 7. Considering the submissions, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to submit fresh representation to the 2nd respondent for conducting survey and demarcating the boundaries of the petitioner’s subject property. The petitioner is also at liberty to take steps after the survey report is furnished. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 24.11.2025 PGT