1 APHC010376652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 18982/2025 Between: 1. VELAGA SREELAKSHMI MANOHARAM, , W/O SRINIVASARAO, D/O RANGARAO(LATE), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, FEMALE, OCCUPATION HOME MAKER, RESIDENT OF D.NO.40-9- 19/4,REVENUE WARD NO.13(OLD WARD NO. 11, NTS NO.25/3)ASSESSMENT NO.224768, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.302, RANGANATH RESIDENCY, SHYAM NAGAR, TIKKLE ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520010, NTR DISTRICT.(MOBILE NO.9849592890) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRIME HILL CREST, 4TH FLOOR, NEAR DGP OFFICE, VADDESWARAM VILLAGE-522502, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA-520001, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-52001 0. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. MULLAPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Mullapudi Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri Goli GVS Sai, learned Counsel representing Sri S.V.S.S. Sivaram, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief: “For the reasons stated above, I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, declaring the illegal actions of the respondents No.1 to 4 more particularly respondent No.3 encroached and acquired part of the subject matter property admeasuring 198.05 sq.yards out of 608,88 sq.yards on 14.06.2025 in violation of sections 293,304,313, 640, 648 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (ACT NO.II OF 1956) under sections 382, 383, 384 or 385 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended from time to time; principles of natural justice; Articles.14 and 16 of the constitution of India is very arbitrary,illegal, unjust and consequently pass an order restraining respondents from making any further encroachment on subject matter property and from dispossessing me from subject matter property as well as for a direction directing respondents to decide my representation dated 19.07.2025 and to proceed under right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition. rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013/Act, 2013; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (ACT NO.II OF 1956) and under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in case any part of subject matter property was required for public purpose like construction of a road and storm water drainage canal etc., pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this 3 Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case.” 3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner, as submitted by the learned Counsel, that father of the Writ Petitioner has acquired ownership rights by way of an Unregistered Family Arrangement dated 09.07.1969 and that by way of another Family Arrangement, the said property has been devolved upon the Petitioner by way of a Registered Family Arrangement dated 16.12.2005. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the portion of the subject land had been utilized by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation for laying a road without paying any compensation. 4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 dated 05.11.2025 would indicate that the Respondents have denied the allegations made by the Writ Petitioner. It is stated that the road situated on the eastern side of the property had been in existence since the year 1974 as per the sanctioned Layout Plan No.41/74 (with 37 feet width) as confirmed in the Town Surveyor’s Report dated 24.05.2025. It is also stated in para 10 of the Counter Affidavit that the northern road, having a width of 35 feet, has been in existence since 1982, and the proposed Storm Water Drainage Canal is now being laid strictly within the existing 37-foot-wide public road. It is also categorically stated that no portion of the Petitioner’s private land has been encroached upon or acquired by the Respondent No.3. Para 10 of the Counter Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder: “10. In reply to para 5 and 6, it is respectfully submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding encroachment and acquisition of 198.05 square yards of her property by this respondent corporation are false baseless and denied in toto. It is apposite to state here that the road situated on the eastern side of the petitioner's property has been in existence since the year 1974 as per sanctioned layout plan No 41/74 and measures 37 feet in width as confirmed in the Town Surveyor's report dated 24.05.2025 and the northern road having a width of 35 feet has been in existence since 1982 and the proposed storm water drainage canal is being laid strictly within the limits of the existing 37 foot wide public road and no 4 portion of the petitioner's private land has been encroached upon or acquired by this respondent and the marking and fixing of plucks were carried out only to demarcate the alignment of the "Strom water drainage canal" within the public road as per the approved municipal records and the allegation of high handed entry and unauthorized excavation or laying of road or pipeline within the petitioner's property is false and baseless and denied by this respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never obtained any building permission or approval from this respondent and the extent and boundaries of her property are not verifiable particularly in view of the discrepancies between her documents and the revenue records noted in the Town Surveyor's report.” 5. The above extract clearly indicates that the Respondents are now trying to lay a Storm Water Drainage Canal within the limits of the road which already existed since 1974 on the eastern side and since 1982 on the northern side. 6. The above facts clearly indicate that there are factual disputes, which are of complex nature due to long lapse of time that require adducing of evidence and that the Competent Court would be a Civil Court to deal with such complex disputed facts. This Court is of the view that the Writ Petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for authoritative determination of the factual aspects by adducing both documentary and oral evidence. 7. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to approach the Competent Civil Court, if so advised. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:22.01.2026 Vns