APHC010014652026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 929/2026 Between: 1. MIRIYALA SURYA KUMARI, C/O MIRIYALA ANANAD RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT 6-4-54, INDRA NAGAR 9TH WARD.PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT 533450 . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, O/O NH-16, MANGALAGIRI ROAD, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDHAR, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. THE PITHAPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP BY COMMISSIONER PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRIC ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in partially demolishing the petitioner’s property without issuing any notice and without following due process of law. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted in Nivesena Sthala Residential Plot and was issued a possession certificate for an extent of Ac.0.01½ cent in the year 2011 by the Tahsildar, Pithapuram and that the petitioner has constructed a small house and has been residing therein. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6, without issuing any notice, have partially demolished the petitioner’s property. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, on written instructions, submits that the property in possession of the petitioner was forming part of the open site in a layout which was earmarked for public toilets. It is also stated that the Mandal Surveyor had conducted a survey and submitted a report that effect. The 6th respondent has further informed in the written instructions that the petitioner has been residing in the said shed for the last 15 years. 4. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the possession certificate relied upon by the petitioner is also doubtful and that the 6th respondent would have to ascertain the same from the 5th respondent. 4 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, the writ petition is disposed off, directing the respondents not to take up further demolition pending conducting a proper survey in the presence of the petitioner and after taking into consideration the possession certificate issued to the petitioner bearing ASO/19/11, filed along with the writ petition. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 shall conduct a proper survey and determine the extent of the possession of the petitioner in terms of the possession certificate. Pending as consideration, there shall be an interim direction not to demolish the remaining portion of the petitioner’s property. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.08.01.2026 SR