APHC010097182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5439/2026 Between: 1. M SREENIVASA ACHARI, S/O M.VELLAACHARI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.27-777, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. C. VEERASWAMY, S/O C.PANCHALAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.15-2451, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. T.A. SUDHAKAR,, S/O LATE THANGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.15-2472, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. S. AKMAL, S/O LATE S.ANSAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.27-759, 27-766, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. S. MASTHAN BEE @ S. RAMIJABI,, W/O LATE S. SYED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 15-2475, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. S. ROUFHUSSAIN KHAN, , S/O S. KHASEEM KHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 15-2474/3, PALAMANER ROAD CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. B. SUSEELA, W/O LATE S. BHAKARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 15-2182, 2186, NUTRINE FACTORY, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 8. S. HEMALATHA, W/O M. KRISHNAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.15-2162,63, PALAMANER RAOD, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GARSIKUTI HARSHA VARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC FOR M.CORPORATION IN RAYALASEEMA REGION IN 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Pala Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri P. Vengal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Chittoor Municipal Corporation and Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 2. Sri P. Vengal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Chittoor Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions from the Commissioner, Chittoor Municipal Corporation. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3 3. The relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder: “More importantly, the core allegation itself is factually incorrect. The Chittoor Municipal Corporation is not undertaking any road widening activity on Prakasam High Road as stated in the Writ Petition. The Corporation is presently undertaking road widening works only on Palamaner Road, specifically from Darga Circle to Iruvaram Flyover via Kajoor Junction, where the existing 60 feet road is proposed to be widened to 80 feet in the larger public interest to ease traffic congestion and improve road safety. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners, being adjacent property owners on Palamaner Road, were duly served statutory notices in accordance with law. Further, anticipating litigation, the Corporation has filed caveats before the competent courts, including Hon'ble High Court Caveat No. 737/2026, Principal District Judge, Chittoor-Caveat No. 10 of 2026; Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor - Caveat No. 12 of 2026; and Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor-Caveat No. 27 of 2026. Caveat notices were also duly served upon the concerned property owners. These steps clearly establish that the Corporation has acted transparently, lawfully, and in strict compliance with statutory procedure. There is absolutely no proposal to widen Prakasam High Road, and no demolition activity has been initiated thereon. The allegations made in the Writ Petition are therefore baseless and misleading. The contention that the Corporation has violated Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India is wholly untenable, as the Corporation is exercising its statutory powers in accordance with Municipal laws and established procedure. Payment of property tax does not curtail the lawful authority of 4 the Corporation to undertake public infrastructure development in the larger public interest. The present Writ Petition is thus founded on wrong identification of the road, clerical inaccuracies, factual misstatements, and lack of proper verification, amounting to misuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 4. The above extract would indicate that there is no proposal by Respondent No.3 for widening the existing 50 feet Prakasam High Road into 100 feet road in Chittoor City. The above extract would also indicate that the road widening works are undertaken only with respect to Palamaner Road, specifically from Darga Circle to Iruvaram Flyover via Kajoor Junction. 5. Having recorded the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition without going into the merits, directing the Respondents to follow the due process of law, including the initiation of Proceedings for acquiring the land belonging to Private Parties whenever the Municipal Corporation seeks to widen the road. 6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 25.02.2026 DSV 5 220 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5439/2026 25.02.2026 DSV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 5439/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 1. 25.02.2026 GRKP, J Writ Petition is disposed of. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 7