G. BHUVANESWARI DEVI, NELLORE DIST. v. PRL. SECY., M.A. DEPT. & 4 ORS.
WP/39447/2014 · 2025-09-11
Harinath N
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9762 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9762 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010109282014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 39447/2014 Between:
1. G. BHUVANESWARI DEVI, NELLORE DIST., W/O. G.V.RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. 24-3-232 (OLD NO. 24-1-1501) OBULREDDY NAGAR, DARGAMITTA MAIN ROAD, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. PRL SECY M A DEPT 4 ORS, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRTION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF NELLORE, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GUDURI VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
3. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO
4. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:-
The petitioner has alleged that a portion of his property was demolished by the respondent authorities for the purpose of road widening relating to the proposed GNT road. The petitioner is seeking compensation in terms of the 2013 Act.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was called upon to submit details relating to the title of the property and other documents and an endorsement dated 15.07.2025 was served on the petitioner. It is submitted that soon after the petitioner submits the representation along with the documents, seeking compensation and necessary orders will be passed.
3. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open for the petitioner to challenge the proceedings passed in pursuance to his representation, if so aggrieved with. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 12.09.2025 SR