APHC010000852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 60/2026 Between: 1. KAMIREDAY SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/0, LATA VENKATESWARA REDDY, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O 3-25-33, PEDDAGHERUVV 8TH LINE, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT 2. KAMIREDDY YASODHARA,, W/O. LATE YEDUKONDALU REDDY, AGE 58 YEARS R/P. ARUNDELPET, NARASARAOPET PALNADU DISTRICT 3. KAMIREDDY VIJYA BHASKARA REDDY,, S/O. VENKATESWARA REDDY, AGE 58 YEARS, R/O. ANINDEIPET NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT 4. KAMIREDDY VIJAYA PADMA,, W/O, LATE SURESH BABU REDDY, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O ARUNDELPET, NARASARAOPET PAIRTADU DISTRICT 5. KOTHA NAGAMANESWARI, W/O. HANUMANTBA RAMIREDDY, AGE 65 YEARS, R/O. RAMIREDDYPET, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT 6. YERUVA VIJAYALAKSNMI,, W/O. VENKATESWARA REDDY, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O. ARUNDELPET, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT 2 VS,J W.P.NO.60 OF 2026 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF MAUD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2. NARASARAOPET MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NARASARAOPET MUNICIPALITY, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICERRDO, NARASARAOPETMUNICIPALITY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, STATION ROAD, NARASARAOPET PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring proceedings dated 30-12- 2025 in ROC No. 1608/2025/G1 against the property situated in Ward No.1, Survey Block No. 23, Town Survey No. 1620, and 2287, opposite th e Railway Feeder Road, within the limits of the Narasaraopet Municipal Corpora tion, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District directing the petitioners to vacate within 3 days Issued by the 2nd respondent without following due process of law as illegal. arbitrary and violative of Art. 300-A of Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and pas IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to suspend the proceedings dated 30-12- 2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in 3 VS,J W.P.NO.60 OF 2026 ROGNo.1608/2025/G1 against the property situated at Ward No.1, Survey Block No. 23, Town Survey NO. 1620, and 2287, opposite t he Railway Feeder Road , within the limits of the Narasaraopet Municipal Corpo ration, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District without following due process of law and violative of principles of natural justice pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.60 OF 2026 ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring proceedings dated 30-12- 2025 in ROC No. 1608/2025/G1 against the property situated in Ward No.1, Survey Block No. 23, Town Survey No.1620, and 2287, opposite the Railway Feeder Road, within the limits of the Narasaraopet Municipal Corporation, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District directing the petitioners to vacate within 3 days Issued by the 2nd respondent without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 300-A of Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice...” 2. The case of the petitioners is that one late Kamireddy Venkateswara Reddy, who is the father of the 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.179 of 1985 before the Principal Munsiff Magistrate, Narasaraopet, for permanent injunction with regard to the land situated at Ward No.1, Survey Block No.23, Town Survey No.1620 and 2287, opposite the Railway Feeder Road, within the limits of the Narasaraopet Municipal Corporation, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District. He also filed another suit in O.S.No.198 of 1987 before the Principal Munsiff Magistrate, Narasaraopet, for permanent injunction and the Court below granted permanent injunction in favour of the petitioners’. Aggrieved by the common order in O.S.No.179 of 1985 and O.S.No.198 of 1987, the Narasaraopet Municipality preferred an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 5 VS,J W.P.NO.60 OF 2026 1991 which was dismissed on 17.11.2000. Thereafter, the respondent-Narasaraopet Municipality also filed another suit in O.S.No.10 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, against the petitioners herein, which was also dismissed by the Court below with costs, holding that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, which was further confirmed in A.S.No.253 of 2006 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC) Guntur, filed by the respondent/Narasaraopet Municipality. 4. While that being so, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 30.12.2025, without having any right declaring that the petitioners are in possession of the Government Land and further directed the petitioner to remove the encroachments within three days from the date of the said notice. Challenging the same, the writ petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 6 VS,J W.P.NO.60 OF 2026 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that the 1st petitioner has also filed two writ petitions before this Court vide W.P.Nos.27106 of 2021 and 7221 of 2025. In W.P.No.27106 of 2021, the 1st petitioner succeeded and obtained an interim order, wherein this Court directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the notice dated 10.11.2021 issued by the respondents therein in W.P.No.27106 of 2021. In W.P.No.7221 of 2025, this Court directed both the parties to maintain Status Quo for a period of eight weeks vide order dated 20.03.2025. 7. On a perusal of the material on record, it would suffice that there are civil litigations between the petitioners and the respondent-Municipality right from the year 1985 in respect of the subject property, and the issue involved herein is at loggerheads, therefore, this Court cannot sit as a fact-finding Court. Be that as it may. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Municipality issued several notices for eviction of the writ petitioners from the subject property. 8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments passed in A.S.No.55 of 1991 and 7 VS,J W.P.NO.60 OF 2026 A.S.No.253 of 2006, this Court is of the opinion that pursuant to the impugned notice, the petitioners also issued a legal notice through their counsel to the respondent-Municipality directing them not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is no doubt true that, pursuant to the impugned notice, the petitioners did not submit any explanation asserting all the facts of civil litigation, wherein judgments were passed in their favour in respect of the subject property. Instead of submitting an explanation to the impugned notice, the petitioners straight away issued a legal notice to the respondent- Municipality. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of going into merits, this Court is of the opinion that it would suffice that if the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation with all the relevant and supportive documents to the respondent authorities treating the impugned notice dated 30.12.2025 as a show cause notice, and on receiving the same the respondent-Municipality shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (1) month, thereafter. 8 VS,J W.P.NO.60 OF 2026 10. In view of the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Petition, shall also stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 05.01.2026 LSP