1 APHC010091682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4793/2025 Between: Elchuri Veerabhadra Chari ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 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 mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of property in Door no.6-13-42 and 43, Arundelpet Main Road, Guntur, by insisting petitioner to surrender an extent of 84.93 sq.yards as mentioned in their notice dt.04.01.2025 without considering petitioner’s representation dt.20.01.2025 and by giving markings to subject property as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and as well as the Procedure prescribed in the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of property in Door no.6- 13-42 and 43, Arundelpet Main Road, Guntur, without following procedure provided in Act 30 of 2013…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation 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: 3 “….In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd 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.” 4. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this 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. 5. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 22.01.2025 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. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 28.02.2025 JLV