APHC010146592026 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: 7671/2026 Between: 1. SONGA RADHA, D/O. S.GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC UN EMPLOYEE, R/O. FLAT NO.T.F-8, BLOCK NO.LO, HUD HUD CYCLONE COLONY, PINAPPLE COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. NADIPILLI VARAHALAMMA, W/O. RAMU, AGED ABOUT - YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O.FLAT NO.S.F-6, BLOCK NO.LO, HUD HUD CYCLONE COLONY, PINAPPLE COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 3. PUWALA SUNITHA,, W/O. VEERA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT - YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. FLAT NO.T.F-6, BLOCK NO.LO, HUD HUD CYCLONE COLONY, PINAPPLE COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 530001 3. THE A P HOUSING CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PLOT NO. 11 AND 12, BEHIND BSNL TELEPHONE BHAVAN AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 520001 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, A.P. HOUSING CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM 530001 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P HOUSING CORPORATION, 2 VISAKHAPATNAM 530001 6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P.S.HOUSING BOARD CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,530001 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ARILOVA POLICE STATION, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.530001 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the action of the Respondents trying to disposes the Petitioners from their allotted houses at Flat no.F-6, Flat No.T.F.No.8 Block No. 10 respectively situated at Hud Hud Cyclone Colony, Pinapple Colony, Visakhapatnam without considering their explanations dt 18-08-2025 for the Notices dt Nil-05-2025, without following the procedure and passing any cancellation Proceedings is violation of Principles of Natural Justice is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disposes the Petitioners from their allotted houses Flat no..F-6, Flat No.T.F.No.8 Block No.10 situated at Hud Hud Cyclone Colony, Pineapple Colony, Visakhapatnam and passing any cancellation Proceedings is violation of Principles of Natural Justice is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. TANDASA RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 2. GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.7671/2026 ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “declare the action of the Respondents trying to disposes the Petitioners from their allotted houses at Flat no.F-6, Flat No.T.F.No.8 Block No. 10 respectively situated at Hud Hud Cyclone Colony, Pineapple Colony, Visakhapatnam without considering their explanations dt 18-08-2025 for the Notices dt Nil-05-2025, without following the procedure and passing any cancellation Proceedings is violation of Principles of Natural Justice is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disposes the Petitioners from their allotted houses Flat no..F-6, Flat No.T.F.No.8 Block No.10 situated at Hud Hud Cyclone Colony, Pineapple Colony, Visakhapatnam and passing any cancellation Proceedings is violation of Principles of Natural Justice is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mallikarjuna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 - A.P. Housing Corporation as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. 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 as well as State Governments with the collaboration of the A.P. Housing Corporation authorities to the affected families of the Hud- hud cyclone, severely affected the Visakhapatnam region, the petitioners were allotted G+3 house flat bearing Nos.TF-8, SF-6 & TF-6 in Sy.No.20/4 in block 4 No.10 at Mudasarlova, Hud Hud Cyclone colony (Pineapple colony), Visakhapatnam Urban limits on payment basis and received Occupancy Certificates from the 3rd respondent Corporation Visakhapatnam District Authorities. Learned counsel submits that ever since the allotment of house flats, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession right from the several years onwards by paying electricity bills and municipal taxes regularly to the respondent authorities. 4. She further submits that, while that is the position, the 3rd respondent Corporation personnel, in the month of May, 2025, came to the house flats of the petitioners and issued common Show-Cause-Notices in a mechanical process stating that they are all non-locals as such their allotment of houses are liable to be cancelled, to which, the petitioners submitted reply on 18.08.2025. 5. She further contends that subsequently, the 3rd respondent corporation Visakhapatnam region personnel, with the assistance of the police, had high- handedly removed the electricity connections of the majority of petitioners’ houses also. Learned counsel states that again the 3rd respondent Corporation came to the petitioners' houses on 16.03.2026 and issued another notice stating that if the petitioners do not vacate the houses, else, the 2nd respondent Corporation authorities, with the help of police, will evict them forcefully. 6. Thus, challenging the arbitrary and unilateral action of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the 3rd respondent Corporation Visakhapatnam 5 region personnel, the instant writ petition has been filed. 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 W.P.No.5158 of 2026 before this Court and the same were disposed of by this Court. Accordingly, she prays for the same reliefs. 7. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Corporation submits that the respondent authorities are acting within the parameters of the law. He submits that in spite of the specific notices issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioners are not coming forward with their explanation. He also placed 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. 8. This Court has heard the respective counsel and also perused the material available on record. 9. It is evident from the material on record that house allotment documents, occupancy certificates issued by the 3rd respondent corporation personnel further house tax payment and electricity payment receipts produced by the petitioner, house tax receipts were issued to the petitioners by the concerned civic authorities. Even as per the version of the 3rd respondent Corporation, the petitioners were allotted house flats on payment of the requisite amounts. Apparently, even according to the 3rd respondent personnel also, they are taking steps to find out ineligible candidates from the said allotted flats, but not all the persons in total. More so, the enquiry 6 process is still going on. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without arriving at final conclusions in the enquiry process at this middle stage, evicting the petitioners from their respective flats is contrary to Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the well settled legal position. 10. In the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah1, 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.” 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, 1 (2024) 10 SCC 533 7 (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.” Thus, in view of the above legal position, it is crystal clear that the respondent authorities are bound to follow the constitutional ethos enunciated under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:- i. The 3rd respondent Corporation personnel of Visakhapatnam region shall issue appropriate fresh notices to the petitioners, under proper acknowledgment, within a period of two (2) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8 ii. On receipt of the said notices, the petitioners shall submit their explanation / reply along with the relevant documents within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. iii. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioners, the 3rd respondent Corporation Personnel shall conduct enquiry, by giving an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the Rules and Regulations, within a period of ten (10) weeks. iv. Till passing of such orders, the 3rd respondent Corporation Personnel and other respondent authorities, 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 in the said enquiry, appropriate directions shall be issued to the discom, civic authorities for the restoration of electricity and other basic amenities to the petitioners. 12. 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 9 114 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.7671 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 GVK