APHC010076972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3964/2025 Between: Sri. Nakiley Veerababu, The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3964/2025 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondents 2 to 4 in dispossessing the Petitioner from the property situated at D.No.3-18-9 Nakellavari Street, New Kakinada, Kakinada Urban without there being any notice as being arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and in contravention of the Municipal bye laws and against to principles of natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the structures at D.No.3-18-9, Nakellavari Street, New Kakinada Kakinada Urban in the scheduled property and issue.….” 2. Heard Sri Mathukumilli Sri Ajay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the he belongs to the poor and economically backward community and eking out his life by running a small petty shop in the subject property situated at D.No.3-18-9, Nakellavari Street, New Kakinada. The subject property originally belonged to his ancestors, after the passing of his forefather, the petitioner’s father took possession of the property, and following his father’s death, the petitioner came into possession 3 of it and the 2nd respondent has noted the said property and assessed with Municipal tax vide assessment No.21060015 and the petitioner is paying the tax without any dues, the authorities never issued any notice or enquired about the said property, but on 12.02.2025 the 2nd respondent without following the procedure contemplated under law, trying to dispossess the petitioner from his property and if the said action is allowed to materialize, the rights of the petitioner will be affected, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on oral instructions contended that, the respondent authorities had never interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply to the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by recording the said instructions, the Writ Petition may be disposed of. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel and instructions into consideration, as the authorities are not interfering with the subject land, 4 there is nothing for adjudication in this writ petition. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities concerned not to interfere with possession of the petitioner over the subject property situated at D.No.3-18-9, Nakellavari Street, New Kakinada, Kakinada District except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:14.02.2025 KKV 5 104 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3964/2025 Date:14.02.2025 KKV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3964 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 14.02.2025 VS, J The Writ petition is disposed of. (Vide Separate Order) ________ VS, J KKV