IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4004 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Y Usha Nirmala Rani, w/o Y.B.Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 55 years, (^c; Housewife r/ H.No. 41/203-B8, Kothapeta, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of A P, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapude, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Kurnool Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Kurnool Kurnool District. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in threatening to demolish the premises constructed on Plot No. 9 and 17 part in Sy.No. 663/A situated at Jayaram Nagar, L.Dis.No. 88/71, Kallur village, within Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool for the purpose of widening of the road to 120 feet without passing more any orders on the explanation 27-1-2025 to the public notice bearing Rc.No. 529094/2023/GI dt. 23-1-2025, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein not to take any coercive steps 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 herein not to demolition the petitioner's premises constructed on Plot No. 9 and 17 part in Sy.No. 663/A situated at Jayaram Nagar, L.Dis.No. 88/71, Kallur village, within Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K-MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMIN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following order: V 1 APHC010072072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4004/2025 Between; Y.Usha Nirmala Rani ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following; 2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2”'' respondent in threatening to demolish the premises constructed on Plot No.9 and 17 part in Sy. No. 663/A situated at Jayaram Nagar, L.Dis.No.88/71, Kallur village, within Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool for the purpose of widening of the road to 120 feet without passing any orders on the explanation 27.1.2025 to the public notice bearing Rc.No.529094/2023/G1 dated 23.1.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2"^ respondent herein not to take any coercive steps without following the due process of Law...." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: “....In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2'’’^ respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.” 3 In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this 4. Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 22.01.2025 5. passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025 to this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/-KJAmRAQ deputy registrar 7^5ECT& //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of AP, Secretariat, Velagapude, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. One CC to Sri. K Mohan Rami Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A S C Bose SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP Municipal Admin and Urban Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this court in WP No. 1400 of 2025) GSC HIGH COURT DATED: 18/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4004 of 2025 ANOS^ = 2 0 MAR 2025 ^ . Current bection . m o> DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS f ’ 1 APHC010025772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1400/2025 Between: Gudipudi Anjani Kumari ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D.No. 6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.24 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Article 14, 19(i)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No. 2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.24 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing Door No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (shop No.24 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and carrying on his own business. While the matter being so, the respondents are intending to give markings to their shop for road widening purpose without following due process of law and without paying fair compensation to her. However, the case of the petitioner is also that the respondents have orally informed that they will give TDR certificate instead of fair compensation. 3. 3 • 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, informed this Court that they -are intending to issue a notice under Section 146 of APMC Act, 1955, to the petitioner and follow the procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 much less the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2"'* respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand 5. 6. closed. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.01.2025 KGR