APHC010119322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL Nos.273 & 313 of 2026 Bench Sr.Nos:-25 & 26 [3552] W.A.No.273 of 2026:- Mandapati Venkata Rama Krishnarao ...Appellant Vs. M/s. Andhra Khadi Bhandar and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Sri Srinivasa Rao Pappu Advocate for respondents : Sri K. Sairam Murthy, Sri A. S. C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 31st March 2026 P C : The present writ appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 21.08.2025 in W.P.No.21945 of 2025 and 22.08.2025 in W.P.No.22039 of 2025 respectively. 2. The said petitions were filed by the petitioners in the said petitions, who are the tenants in a building which is owned by the present appellant. 2 3. The grievance of the petitioners before the learned single Judge was that the official respondents were interfering with the possession of the petitioners in the building in question without following due process as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”). It is in those circumstances, the writ petitions came to be disposed of by following the earlier order passed in W.P.No.1400 of 2025 wherein a simple direction was issued not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners without following the procedure as contemplated under the Act of 2013. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant cases, urge that the petitioners, who are the tenants, had no right to insist upon the procedure to be followed as otherwise envisaged under the Act of 2013 and it is only the appellant who was entitled to claim compensation if at all the building was demolished. 5. However, we have been informed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, who were the petitioners before the learned single Judge, that the building in question has since been demolished. 6. It would be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies for claiming benefit under the provisions of the Act of 2013 and nothing remains to be decided in these appeals. 3 7. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD 4 61 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL Nos.273 & 313 of 2026 Dt:31.03.2026 AMD