APHC010290042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15239/2026 Between: 1. SANDRANI DEMUDU, S/O LATE MUSALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O D.NO.31-50-85, JAGGARAJUPETA VILLAGE, PAKIRTAKIA POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. SANDRANI TRINADHA RAO, S/O DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 38 R/O D.NO.31-50-85, JAGGARAJUPETA VILLAGE,YEARS, PAKIRTAKIA POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 238 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 238. 3. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS ZONAL COMMISSIONER, 8TH ZONE, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-520 026. 4. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS ZONAL COMMISSIONER, 6TH ZONE, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530 047. 5. THE CITY TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TENNETI BHAVANAM, ASILMETTA, RTC COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530 02. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DUVVADA POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530 046. ...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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction a) To declare the action of Respondents in threatening to dispossess the Petitioners from property admeasuring Ac.0.7 72 Cts out of Ac.0.50 Cts in Sy.No.64, Patta No.29 situated at Jaggarajupeta Village, Pakeer Takya, Gajuwaka Mandal, Greater VisakhapatnamMunicipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District bounded by East- GopusettyGurayya Gari Land, West- JaggarajupetaGramakantham, North-Property of Sandrani Demudu and South-11 Ft. Vacant Site left by Sandrani Demudu and Konthada Srinivasa Rao without issuing any notice or following due process of law or initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in utter violation of Principles of Natural Justice besides being in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act and Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration and Urban Areas Development Act and Rules made thereunder and b) To consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from the property admeasuring Ac.0.7 72 Cts out of Ac.0.50 Cts in Sy.No.64, Patta No.29 situated at Jaggarajupeta Village, Pakeer Takya, Gajuwaka Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District bounded by East- r Gopusetty Gurayya Gari Land, West-JaggarajupetaGramakantham, North-Property of Sandrani Demudu and South-11 Ft. Vacant Site left by Sandrani Demudu and Konthada Srinivasa Rao and c) To consequently direct the Respondents to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest towards unauthorized demolition activity carried out by the Respondents over property admeasuring Ac.0.7 72 Cts out of Ac.0.50 Cts in Sy.No.64, Patta No.29 situated at Jaggarajupeta Village, Pakeer Takya, Gajuwaka Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District bounded by JaggarajupetaGramakantham, North-Property of Sandrani Demudu and South-11 Ft. Vacant Site left by Sandrani Demudu and Konthada Srinivasa Rao and d) Pass other pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to desist the Respondents from interfering with Petitionersproperty admeasuring Ac.0.7 2 Cts out of Ac.0.50 Cts in Sy.No.64, Patta No.29 situated at Jaggarajupeta Village, Pakeer Takya, Gajuwaka Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to desist the Respondents from laying road over Petitioners property admeasuring Ac.0.7 2 Cts out of Ac.0.50 Cts in Sy.No.64 Patta No.29 situated at Jaggarajupeta Village, Pakeer Takya, Gajuwaka Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for the 1strespondent; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents 2 & 6, and Sri S.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned standing counsel for the respondents 3 to 5. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 3 to 6 are attempting to lay a road in the petitioners’ property in an extent of Ac.0.07½ cents, out of Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.64, Patta No.29, Jaggarajupeta village, Pakeer Takya, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due procedure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2011 against Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and the City Town Planning Officer, GVMC, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, seeking perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 20.12.2012. Despite the decree, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners of the subject property. 4. Sri S.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned standing counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, on instructions, would submit that initially, the petitioners agreed to lay a road in the petitioners’ land of an extent of 4 feet. The authorities measured and levelled the land for layingthe road in the presence of the petitioners. The petitioner made a volte-face and filed the writ petition as if the authorities attempted to lay the road without following the due procedure. Since the petitionersare not interested, the authorities do not intend to lay the road in the petitioners’ land, and the authorities will lay the road on 11 feet on the Southern side of the petitioners’ land. Since the petitioners initially agreed to lay the road, the authorities levelled the land in their presence. He would finally submit that the authorities will not lay the road in the petitioner’s land. 5. In view of submissions of learned standing counsel, keeping the writ petition pending and inviting a counter will not serve any purpose. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0.07½ cents, out of Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.64, Patta No.29, Jaggarajupeta village, Pakeer Takya, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due procedure.No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD