APHC010710062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36789/2025 Between: 1. KURUVA SUNKANNA, S/O CHINNA BUGGANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O PEDDAPADU VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KURNOOL. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in attempting to lay the C.C. Road through the petitioners private patta land in Sy.No. 122 admeasuring ac. 4.34 cents situated at Peddapadu village, Kallur Mandal, within Kurnool Municipal Corporation limits,Kurnool District, without any notice and without initiating the Land Acquisition Proeedings, as being illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unconstitutional and volative of 2 Articles, 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein not to any coercive steps including laying of the CC road, without following .the procedure contemplated under the statue, and to grant such other relief reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including laying of CC Road through the petitioners through the petitioner's private patta land in Sy.No. 122 admeasuring ac. 4.34 cents situated at Peddapadu village, Kallur Mandal, within Kurnool Municipal pending disposal of the main Writ Corporation limits, Kurnool District, Petition, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed action of the respondent authorities in attempting to lay a CC road through the petitioner’s private patta property in Sy. No.122, admeasuring Ac.4.34 cents, situated at Peddapadu Village, Kallur Mandal, within the limits of Kurnool Municipal Corporation. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the said property, having purchased the same vide a registered sale deed dated 21.04.1975, and that he is eking out his livelihood by cultivation. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent and its officers have laid a foundation stone for laying of CC roads from Z.P.H.S. Boys High School, Peddapadu, to T. Subbarami Reddy godowns, Peddapadu, in Ward No.36. It is submitted that the petitioner’s property is directly affected by the said proposal and that, as on date, the respondent authorities have neither issued any notice nor made any publication for acquisition of the petitioner’s property for public purposes. However, the 2nd respondent has been sending its men to mark the petitioner’s property without issuing any notice. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on written instructions, submits that the proposal was received through the grievance cell and that the CC road is now proposed on the existing gravel road, and that the said road would be useful for the general public as well as the local public. 4 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent intends to proceed with the laying of a CC road for public purposes. However, the private property belonging to the petitioner cannot be taken over by the 2nd respondent under the guise of public purpose without resorting to acquisition in accordance with law. The petitioner would have to be adequately compensated for the land affected by road widening. 6. However, considering the submission of the 2nd respondent that the proposal is still in the nascent stage, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, making it clear that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from his land without following the due process of law. It is further made clear that the 2nd respondent shall strictly adhere to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the event the petitioner’s land is required for public purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 07.01.2026. PNS 5