APHC010013102026 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: 866/2026 Between: 1. GADDIPILLI APPANNA,, S/O. MAGGANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.6-147, CHINNA RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. GADDIPILLI SADHU RAO,, S/O. MOGGANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.7-157, SWARNA BHARATH NAGAR, PEDA RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. GADDIPALLI APPALAKONDA,, W/O. DANAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.6-169, CHINNA RUSHIKONDA, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VUDA, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN VMRDA, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT -530 003. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to dispossess them from the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.34-9 and Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.34-10 situated at Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District, for constructing of a building. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners have been eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said land and that the 2nd respondent as on date has not acquired the said lands nor initiated any steps for acquisition of the said lands. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent has been sending their men for measurement of the land, apparently for constructing the building by taking over the petitioners’ property. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents can take over the petitioners’ property only in accordance with law, either by acquisition of the property by invoking provisions of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or in the alternative, they have to propose any other acceptable compensation to the petitioners. It is submitted that without following the due process of law, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from their properties. 4 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent shall verify the status of acquisition of the petitioners’ property and in the event the petitioners’ property is acquired, the proceedings of the same shall be furnished to the petitioners and also furnish the copies of the compensation, if any, paid to the petitioners at an earlier point of time. 5. Recording the above submissions, the writ petition stands disposed off, directing the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from their property in the event the property of the petitioners is not acquired earlier and compensation for the said acquisition has not been received by the petitioners. In the event the property was not acquired at an earlier point of time and no compensation was paid to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent would have to essentially follow the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the event the property of the petitioners is required for any public purpose. 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