IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3389 OF 2025 Between: Chandolu Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Vasudeva Rao, aged about 62 R/o. 5-66-45, Opp: Indira Gandhi Statue, 6/22 Brodipet, Cobalpet Guntur. years. area ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department and Urban Development Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep. By its Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Opp. Gandhi Park, Lalapet, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2 respondent in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over her property i.e 8 sq. yards of land along with a RCC Shop No.4, Door No.5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City and initiating steps to demolish the said property of the petitioner without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct Respondent No.2 and its staff not to interfere with the may nd possession and ownership of Petitioner over her property i.e8 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop No.4. Door No.5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City without following the due process of law. lA 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 to direct the 2'^'^ respondent and its staff not to interfere with possession enjoyment of petitioner over his property ie. 8 sq.yards of land along with a RCC Shop No.4(GF-4), Door No.5*55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City in any manner including trespass, dispossession, demolition or blocking the ingress/egress from shop, or canvassing to stop the customers. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNC & MUNC CORPORATION The Court made the following: ORDER W APHC010061402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3389 of 2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Chandolu Vijaya Lakshmi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and another Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. 2. A.S.C. BOSE, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following; 2 VS,J W.P.No.3389 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief; “ to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2'’'^ respondent in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over her property i.e. 8 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no.4, Door No. 5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City and initiating steps to demolish the said property of the petitioner without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 and its staff not to interfere with the possession and ownership of Petitioner over her property i.e. 8 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no.4, Door No. 5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City, without following the due process of law. ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development representing respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: 3. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property admeasuring 8 sq. yards of land along with an RCC shop No.4 at Door No.5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing Doc.No. 10666/2003 dated 12.11.2003, and ever since the date of purchase, she has been in possession of the said property by paying taxes regularly. The petitioner has let out the said property and the rental income received is the only source of her livelihood. (i) 3 VS,J W.P.No.3389 of 2025 earlier, when the 2"^ respondent- notice dated 22.03.2010 under Sections 441, (ii) While that being so Corporation issued a and 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 443, 463 unauthorized construction and terming the subject property as the petitioner to remove the same, she had filed an directing before this Court. This Court, having observed W.P.No.13663 of 2010 material was placed on record to show that any show-cause issued before issuing the set aside the impugned notice, but however, left a fresh notice under and take appropriate action following due accordingly disposed of the said writ petition vide that no notice under Section 452 of the Act was impugned notice, has it open to the respondent authorities to issue Section 452 of the Act process of law, and order dated 21.06.2010. contends that after the aforesaid order (iii) The petitioner dated 21.06.2010 in W.P.No.13663 of 2010 was passed, no show- nd respondent- issued by the 2 notice whatsoever was cause interference with her possession over but however, the staff of the Corporation and there was no the subject property for all these years 2"" respondent-corporation visited the subject property on 30.01.2025 the property within two weeks, on the and issued directions to vacate ground that the petitioner has is meant for demolition. made unauthorized construction which 4 VS,J W.P.No.3389of 2025 (iv) Questioning the said action of the 2'^^ respondent in seeking to demolish the petitioner’s property without following due process of law, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^^ respondent- Corporation, has furnished a copy of the written instructions dated 05.02.2025 received from the City Planner of the Guntur Municipal Corporation, wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s shop is located in stilt floor, which is meant for the purpose of parking vehicles, and the said shop was neither permitted nor regularized by the Corporation. However, it is stated that the Corporation will issue notice and follow due 4. procedure in accordance with law in the event of initiation of action against the said unauthorized construction of shop in the parking floor. From the facts pleaded as well as the instructions furnished by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, it is evident that the Corporation has not initiated any action against the subject property after disposal of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e., W.P.No.13663 of 2010, on 21.06.2010 and more than 14 years have elapsed by now. Though it is contended by the 2""' respondent- corporation that the petitioner’s shop is located in stilt floor, which is solely meant for the purpose of parking vehicles, admittedly, as of now, no show-cause notice has been issued by the 2"^ respondent- 5. 5 VS,J W.P.No.3389 of 2025 Corporation to the petitioner regarding the subject shop. Be that as it may, the 2^^^ respondent-Corporation has undertaken to issue notice to the petitioner and follow due process of law, if any action is required to be initiated against the subject property. In view of the same, instead of keeping the present writ petition pending, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the same at the admission stage, by directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. 6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No 7. order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, pending in this writ petition Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR shall stand closed. 21 //TRUE COPY// r,SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Opp: Gandhi Park, Lalapet, Guntur. One CC to Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, SC for MUNC & MUNC Corporation. [OPUC] Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. gi HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3389 of 2025 g I! MAR 2025 s Current Section . ^M DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS