1 APHC010106722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos: 5722 & 5760 OF 2026 W.P.No.5722 of 2026: Between: 1. CHEDURI PATTABHI RAMAYYA, S/O SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS (PROPRIETOR - PATTABHI TRADERS) R/O DOOR NO. 65-8-7/3, BORYYAKAPU STREET, NEAR SARDADEVI TEMPLE, MEHAR NAGAR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.522238 2. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.533001 3. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS DEPUTY CITY PLANNER KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.533001 4. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS TOWN PLANNING OFFICE KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH533001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M KRISHNA RAO SC FOR SKL VZM KKD MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP W.P.No.5760 of 2026: Between: 1. SRI. MAMIDISETTI MADHUSUDANA RAO,, S/O MAMIDISETTI RAMADASU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-1A-23/3, MAHATMA STREET, BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, KONDAYYAPALEM KAKINADA (URBAN), KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.522238 2. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.533001 3. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY CITY PLANNER KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH533001 4. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS TOWN PLANNING OFFICE KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.533001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M KRISHNA RAO SC FOR SKL VZM KKD MUNICIPAL 3 CORPORATIONS 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard Ms. Gandham Kusumapapa, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation. 2. The prayer sought in W.P.No.5722 of 2026 is as under: “In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in attempting to demolish the structures standing on the schedule property of the Petitioner without issuing statutory notice, without conducting a lawful joint survey, and without following due process under the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to conduct a proper joint survey in coordination with the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of boundaries before taking any action, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.” 3. On perusal of the photographs filed in the present Writ Petitions, this Court has noticed from the said photographs that several buildings in the street, including those of the Writ Petitioners herein, have made constructions on the land lying between the open drainage and the compound wall. 4 4. Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation, would submit that the land lying between the open drainage and the compound wall of the other sites is public land and the concern of the Respondent is to ensure that the public land is kept free from any occupation or encroachment. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions with a direction to the Official Respondents to clear the encroachments within a period of four (4) weeks from today by following the principles of Natural Justice and in accordance with law. This apart, having regard to the facts of these cases, it is clarified that this Court is not inclined to grant any protection to the Writ Petitioners. 6. With the above observations and directions, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:05.03.2026 Vns