Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 25.06.2026 Date of uploading : 03.07.2026 APHC010207882014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24864/2014 Between: 1. KARRI VEERRAJU, S/O ADINARAYANA,, R/O.D.NO. 38-38-68/24, SHIVAJI NAGAR II, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 18. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GREATER VISAKHA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ZONE-II, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ZONE - II, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. JR NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT - KSR MURTHY, R/O.SREE CHAKRA APARTMENTS, JR NAGAR, OLD VENKOJIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to forcibly take possession of our land in an extent of 3000 sq.yards in Sy.No.22 of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam, which is a triangular site shown to have been ear-marked for shops as the title and possession of which is retained by the petitioner without alienating to the respondent corporation even as per the approved lay out TP No. 35/1970 which is relied upon by the respondent and to make constructions around it without following any due process of law, without issuing any notice or passing any order in spite of the orders in earlier writ petition WP No.5773 of 2010, dt.31.10.2011, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of Natural justice and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said property by the petitioner except under due process of law IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 31119 OF 2014 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 pass an interim direction against the respondents directing them not to forcibly dispossess the petitioner or in any manner whatsoever to interfere with his possession of the property to the extent of 3000 sq. yards in Sy.No. 22 of 2 Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam which is earmarked for shopping complex under the approved plan T.P. No. 35/1970 which is relied upon by the respondent, during the pendency of this writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC) 2. S SREERAMACHANDRA MURTHY 3. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.24864 OF 2014 ORDER: 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is taken up for hearing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the alleged attempts of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, at the instance of respondent No. 3, to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land situated in R.S. No. 22 of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the subject property has been retained by the petitioner and does not form part of Layout No. 35 of 1970. 4. Respondent No. 3 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the subject property is an open space earmarked for common purposes, such as parks, recreation, library and etc., under T.P. No. 35 of 1970. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on instructions, submits that the subject property does not belong to the petitioner and forms part of the open space reserved under T.P. No. 35 of 1970. 6. In view of the rival claims regarding title to the subject property, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has to work out the appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court by filing appropriate proceedings for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. In so far as 4 this Court is concerned, it is the responsibility of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to safeguard the open areas meant for public purposes. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 25.06.2026 KGM Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 5 181 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.24864 of 2014 Dated 25.06.2026 KGM