APHC010113912026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6648/2026 Between: 1. POTTURI RAMALAKSHMI, W/O POTTURIBANGARURAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.24-182/1, ROAD NUMBER 1, NEAR AUTO STAND, VEPAGUNTA, SIMHAPURI COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530047. 2. CH. V.A. CHIRANJEEVI NAIDU,, S/O MALLU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SATHAKAMPATTU, CHOWDUWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 531034 3. KORRAIKONDAMMA,, W/O KORRAITATINAIDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSE NUMBER - 2-31, RAMALAYAM STREET, KOMMADI, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530048. 4. SAGIRAJUSATYANARAYANARAJU, S/O SURYANARAYANARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.7-3, SHANTI NAGAR, DEVIMETTA, KOMMADI, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530048. 5. KONDAVALASAGOWRI,, W/O K. GOWRISANTOSH. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.7-64, KINDAVEEDHI, NEAR MUDUGULLAYELLAPUVANIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530027. 6. AKKIREDDYVARALAKSHMI,, W/O A KANAKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.2-74/6 WARD NO.66, YELLAPUVANIPALEM, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530027. 7. ADARIVARALAKSHMI,, W/O NELIAKANTARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.5-23, KINDAVEEDHI, YELLAPUVANIPALEM, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530027. 2 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BYITSSPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY,HOUSING DEPARTMENT, N SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI, GUNTURDISTRICT. - 522238 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO.11 AND 12, BEHIND BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.-520002 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-531034 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.-531034 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.-531034 6. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.-531034 ...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, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the high-handed action of the respondents, more specifically the 4th respondent, in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their respectively allotted flats for HUD HUD victims in Mudasarlova Layout without issuing any notice or following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their respective flats without following due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJESH MATCHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3 2. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 3. GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “declaring the high-handed action of the respondents, more specifically the 4th respondent, in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their respectively allotted flats for HUD HUD victims in Mudasarlova Layout without issuing any notice or following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their respective flats without following due process of law and pass.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mallikarjuna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-A.P. Housing Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, submits that the petitioners are landless poor persons and they fall below the poverty line. He submits that pursuant to the scheme initiated by the Central Government with the collaboration of the A.P. Housing Corporation authorities to the affected parties of the Hud-Hud cyclone, the petitioners were allotted G+3 house flat bearing Nos.FF-8 in block No.6, GF-8 in block No.2, GF-3 in block No.9, FF-4 in block No.8 & FF-2 in block No.8 at Mudasarlova layout, Visakhapatnam Urban limits on payment basis and received occupancy certificate from the 2nd respondent Corporation. Learned counsel submits that ever since the allotment of house flats, the petitioners 4 have been in peaceful possession by paying electricity bills and house taxes regularly to the respondent authorities, without any interruption. 4. He further submits that, while that is the position, the 4th respondent and 5th respondent Corporation authorities suddenly came to the petitioners’ house on 20.02.2026 and 27.02.2026, and threatened the petitioners in a high- handed manner, without even issuing any Show-Cause-Notice. Thus, challenging the said arbitrary action of the respondent authorities, the instant writ petition has been filed on the ground of violation of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the people of very same locality had instituted W.P.No.17281 of 2025 and the same was disposed of. 6. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Corporation submits that the respondent authorities are acting within the parameters of the law. He also places a copy of the written instructions dated 07.04.2026 issued by the respondent Corporation and states that enquiry is being conducted on 07.04.2026 in order to root out the ineligible persons. 7. This Court has perused the material available on record. 8. As seen from the record, it is apparent that the petitioner has placed relevant documents to substantiate their prima facie possession and enjoyment of the subject flats. On the contrary, the respondents are not able to demonstrate the fact whether they issued any prior notice to the petitioner. 5 In the absence of the said material, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents ought not to have dispossessed the petitioners of their respective flats without following due process of Law. In this scenario, it is apt to note the constitutional ethos enshrined in Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, which primarily commands the respondents or any other to follow the due process of law. 9. It is appropriate to mention the dictum held in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah 1 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court reaffirmed that deprivation of property must be strictly in accordance with a just, fair, and reasonable procedure under Article 300-A and held that the mere existence of a law is not enough; proper procedural safeguards are mandatory to validate such action. The relevant para is extracted as under: “...28. While it is true that after the 44th Constitutional Amendment [the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978], the right to property drifted from Part III to Part XII of the Constitution, there continues to be a potent safety net against arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and unfair redressal mechanisms. Despite its spatial placement, Article 300-A [300-A of the Constitution: “300- A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”] which declares that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” has been characterised both as a constitutional and also a human right [Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 799] . To assume that constitutional protection gets constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation would be a disingenuous reading of the text and, shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution.” 1 (2024) 10 SCC 533 6 30. “...Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non- exhaustive. These are: (i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property — the right to notice, (ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition — the right to be heard, (iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire — the right to a reasoned decision, (vi) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose — the duty to acquire only for public purpose, (v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate — the right of restitution or fair compensation, (vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings — the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and (vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting — the right of conclusion.” “...31. These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantation [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] declares that the law envisaged under Article 300-A must be in line with the overarching principles of rule of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-rights as “procedural”, a nomenclature that often tends to undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300-A, non-compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law.” 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and taking into consideration, in an identical case, orders were passed by this Court in W.P.No.5158 of 2026 and also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as enshrined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:- i. The 2nd respondent Corporation shall issue appropriate fresh notices to the petitioners, under proper acknowledgment, within 7 a period of one week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii. On receipt of the said notices, the petitioners shall submit their explanation / reply along with the relevant documents within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter. iii. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioners, the 2nd respondent Corporation shall conduct enquiry, if necessary, by giving an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the Rules and Regulations, within a period of eight (8) weeks. iv. Till passing of such orders, the 2nd respondent Corporation and the DISCOMs, including police, shall not take any steps / initiate action to dispossess the petitioners from the flats or disconnect the supply to their service connections. v. It is needless to mention that if the respondent authorities find genuine and eligible persons for allotment of flats in the said enquiry, appropriate directions shall be issued for the restoration of electricity. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 08.04.2026 GVK 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.6648 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 GVK 168