APHC010109792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P. Nos. 5883 & 5886 OF 2026 W.P.No.5883 of 2026 Between: 1. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN, s/o B R Jain (late), Aged 64 years, r/o FlatNo.201, Roshan Tower, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam Urban- 530003. Visakhapatnam District. 2. Savita Jain, w/o Mahendra Kumar Jain, Aged 62 years, r/o FlatNo.201, Roshan Tower, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam Urban-530003. Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioners AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, rep by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530002. Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV W.P.No.5886 of 2026 Between: 1. BOLISETTY SRIDEVI, w/o V Balaji Srinivasa Rao, Aged 56 years, r/o Flat No. 101,D.No. 10-5-14, Facor Layout, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam-530002.' Visakhapatnam District. 2 ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522238. 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam MunicipalCorporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530002. Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 The Court made the following ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Harsha S. Ammineni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations. 2. The prayer sought in both the Writ Petitions and the facts involved therein are identical, and therefore, the prayer in the W.P.No.5883 of 2026 is extracted hereunder: “…….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by i) declaring the action on the part of Respondent no.2 in making red marking to the property of the petitioners under Assessment No.1086583198, exactly to the Petitioners southern side of property bearing D.No.9-7-40A, part of Plot No.94, in an extent of 200 sq.yds, Sivaji Palem, Revenue Ward No.16, Visakhapatnam, intending to demolish the property of the Petitioners, without issuing any prior notice for making such red marking or their intention to demolish the property of the Petitioners, without following the procedure for acquisition either as per the Land Acquisition Act or as per the A.P Municipal Corporation Act, is nothing but arbitrary, unlawful, highhanded, unreasonable, unjustified, and in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners guaranteed under Art.14, 19(g) and 300A of the Constitution, ii) by consequently directing the Respondent no.2 not to demolish or take possession of the property of the Petitioners under Assessment No.1086583198, exactly to the southern side of property bearing D.No.9-7-40A, part of Plot No.94, in an extent of 200 sq.yds, Sivaji Palem, Revenue Ward No. 16, Visakhapatnam, except by following due process of law and pass such other order or orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. It is claimed by the Writ Petitioners in both Writ Petitions that they are the absolute owners of an extent of 200 square yards in Sy.No.40 of Sivajipalem Village, within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam vide Registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.2005 (in W.P.No.5883 of 2026) and in respect of an extent of 192 square yards situated in (part of Plot No.94 of Waltair Ward) Sy.No.40 of Sivajipalem Village within the Municipal 4 Corporation, Visakhapatnam vide Registered Sale Deed dated 01.10.2005 (in W.P.No.5886 of 2025), Ex.P.1 respectively. 4. Sri Harsha S. Ammineni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations has submitted Written Instructions furnished by the Zonal Commissioner of Respondent No.2 Corporation in both the Writ Petitions. Both the Written Instructions are also supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. The same are taken on record. The Written Instructions would indicate that except taking measurements given in red marks for identification of encroachments or acquisition of land for extension of 60 ft road to 80 ft road, there is no demolition activity undertaken by the answering Respondent. It is also categorically stated that the Respondent Corporation would not take any steps without following due process of law. Relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder: “The petitioner approached this Honourable Court prematurely without any cause of action, except taking measurements giving red marks for identification of encroachments, or acquisition of land for extension of 60 ft to 80 ft, there is no demolition activity done by this Respondent and this respondent corporation is not taking any steps without following due process”. 5. Having recorded the Written Instruction (extracted above), this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two Writ Petitions with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to follow the due process of law in the event that the Respondent Authorities intend to take any coercive steps in the future. 6. With these observations and directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 27.02.2026 JKS 5 47 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.Nos.5883 & 5886 OF 2026 27.02.2026 JKS