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: 3381 OF 2025 Between: Chitirala Madhuri, D/o Sambasiva Rao, aged about 47 years, R/o 5-38- 29/B, 5/2 Brodipet, Guntur - 522002. ...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, 0pp. 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 may 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 ,2nd respondent in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over her property i.el7 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no.2 (GF-2), 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.el7 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no.2 (GF-2), 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 2nd respondent and its staff not to interfere with possession enjoyment of petitioner over his property i.e 17 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no.2 (GF-2), 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. SASANKABHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following order: APHC010061422025 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.3381 of 2025 Between: Chitirala Madhuri ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. A.S.C. BOSE, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: 2 vs,j W.P.No.3381of 2025 ORDER: K 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 particuiariy 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. 17 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no. 2 (GF-2), 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. 17 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no. 2 (GF-2), Door No. 5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City without following the due process of law. 2. 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. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: (i) The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property admeasuring 17 sq. yards of land along with an RCC shop No.2 (GF-2) at Door No.5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment,4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City. The subject property was originally purchased by petitioner’s mother, namely Chitirala Nagalakshmi, vide registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2150/2005 dated 17.02.2005, and she had been in possession of the same by paying taxes, until her death on 11.08.2023. After demiseof the petitioner’s mother, the property 3 VS,J W.P.No.3381of2025 devolved upon the petitioner by virtue of a relinquishment deed dated 18.10.2023 executed by the brother and sister of the petitioner relinquishing their share of right in the said property in her favour and thereby, the petitioner has become the absolute owner of the subject property and the rental income received on the said property is the only source of her livelihood. It is further stated that during the lifetime of petitioner’s mother, when the 2'^^ respondent-Corporation issued a notice dated (ii) 22.03.2010 under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, terming the subject property as an unauthorized construction and directing the petitioner’s mother to remove the same. she had filed W.P.No.13448 of 2010 before this Court. This Court, having observed that no material was placed on record to show that any show-cause notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued before issuing the impugned notice, disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 16.06.2010, permitting the petitioner’s mother to submit her explanation/objections to the Corporation, by treating the impugned notice as a show-cause notice under Section 452 of the HMC Act, within four weeks from the date of the order, and upon submission of such explanation, the 2^^ respondent - Corporation was directed to consider the same and pass app^priate orders in accordance with law. 4 vs,j W.P.No.3381of2025 (iii) It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the nd petitioner’s mother had submitted an explanation to the 2 respondent- Corporation on 14.07.2010, but no order has been passed by the 2^^^ respondent thereafter and there was no interference with regard to the subject property by the 2^^ respondent. (iv) It is contended that, having remained silent for all these 14>^ years after passing of the order in the earlier writ petition and submission of explanation by the mother of the petitioner, the staff of nd the 2 respondent-corporation visited the subject property on 30.01.2025 and issued directions to vacate the property within two weeks, on the ground that the property is included in the list of properties meant for demolition and demolition would take place in two weeks. (v) Questioning the said action of the 2'^'^ respondent in seeking to demolish the petitioner’s property without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. 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. 5 VS,J W.P.No.3381of 2025 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 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 5. 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 mother of the petitioner i.e., W.P.No.13448 of 2010, on 16.06.2010 and more than nd 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-corporation to the petitioner regarding the subject nd respondent-corporation has shop. Be that as it may, the 2 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 6. pending, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the same at the admission stage, by directing the respondents not to interfere with the 6 VS,J W.P.No.3381of2025 possession of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. 7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if shall stand closed. any, pending in this writ petition Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// jT O' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, 0pp. Gandhi Park, Lalapet, Guntur. 3. One CC to Sri. Sasanka Bhuvanagiri Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. A S C Bose SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admin And Urban Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3381 of 2025 X 19 mar 2C?5 . Current Section ^ ^ DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS