PASUMARTHI VENKATA HARI PRASAD v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/1049/2026 · 2026-01-07
Harinath N
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14890 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14890 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1049 of 2026 ORDER:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the unilateral action of respondent No.2 in marking the petitioner’s property for the purpose of demolishing the same for road-widening purposes. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the property vide a registered sale deed in the year 2021, and that the vendor of the petitioner had purchased the said property on 10.05.2000.
2. It is further submitted that the petitioner constructed a shed and is conducting business from the said shed. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s property is assessed to property tax and that respondent No.2 is collecting the said tax.
3. It is submitted that on the western boundary of the petitioner’s property, the Nagarjuna Sagar Project canal is abutting, and respondent No.2 now proposes to lay a road on the said bund. In the said process, the respondents, without issuing any notice of acquisition of land, have straightaway approached the petitioner’s property and made markings proposing to demolish the same.
4. It is submitted that the respondents have no right or authority to take over the petitioner’s property without following the due process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be adequately compensated for the land required for public purposes, and for that purpose respondent No.2 is required to invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
2
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
5. Sri G.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on oral instructions, submits that as of now, apart from the markings, nothing further has been done to the petitioner’s property.
6. Recording the same, the present writ petition is disposed off, making it clear that the respondent authorities shall not dispossess the petitioner or demolish the petitioner’s property without following the due process of law. It is also made clear that respondent No.2 would invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or propose any other acceptable alternative compensation to the petitioner for the source land. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:08.01.2026 NKA
3
98 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 1049 of 2026 Date: 08.01.2025
NKA