1 APHC010081252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4263/2025 Between: E.Boopathi Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to interfere and acquire the property of petitioner situated in D.No.22-429, Srinivas Nagar, Kattamachi Road, Chittoor Town, Chittoor District without initiating land acquisition proceedings, without paying compensation and without the consent of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016 and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into the petitioner’s property situated in D.No.22-429, Srinivas Nagar, Kattamachi Road, Chittoor Town, Chittoor District without initiating land acquisition proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.10.2019 from his lawful vendor. Since the purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The property is assessed for house tax by the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner has been regularly paying the tax without default. b) While the matter being so, on 23.01.2025, the subordinates of the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the subject property, along with 3 various other properties, would be acquired by the 2nd respondent for the purpose of road widening. The petitioner was directed to vacate the subject property forthwith. Despite the petitioner trying to explain to the authorities, stating that no such notification for the acquisition or road widening had been issued and that no compensation had been prescribed for the proposed acquisition, the staff of the 2nd respondent forcibly entered the subject property and attempted to demolish the existing structures. c) The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent is trying to acquire the subject property without following due process of law and without initiating the proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquire the subject property and pay the adequate compensation. Moreover, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to acquire the subject property by following the due process of law. On 05.02.2025, the staff of the 2nd respondent visited the subject property and tried to take measurements and markings for the proposed road widening. Challenging the action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.P.Vengal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2 has furnished a copy of instructions of 4 the 2nd respondent/Commissioner, Chittoor Municipal Corporation, wherein it is stated that, the staff of the Municipal Corporation has not initiated any action against the petitioner’s property for road widening or for acquiring the said property. It is further stated that the respondents have only measured the existing road portion for preparation of the road development plan. It is also stated that if the Municipal Corporation initiate any land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the land for road development, they will follow the rules as per Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016. 5. Recording the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 20.02.2025 KGR