APHC010143942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 311 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3579] Pydi Prabhavathi and others ...Appellants Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. K. Jyothi Prasad Advocates for Respondents : Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel for Municipalities GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 29th June 2026 LISA GILL, CJ. This Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, has been filed by writ petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025, which was dismissed by way of common order dated 04.02.2026, vide which, another W.P.No.16408 of 2025 filed by Mrs. Kota Sithamma, who is respondent No.4 in W.P.No.6879 of 2025(hereinafter referred to as respondent No.4), was allowed. 2. W.P.No.6879 of 2025 was filed by present appellants for declaring action of official respondents in taking steps to demolish petitioners' hut/pan shop, and insisting upon them to vacate land measuring Ac.0.02 cents covered by Sy.Nos.42 and 16-28, situated in Krishnapuram village, 2 HCJ & NJSJ W.A.No.311 of 2026 Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, to be illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the applicable rules and regulations. W.P.No.16408 of 2025 was filed by Mrs. Kota Seethamma/respondent No.4 herein seeking a direction to respondents to remove illegal and unauthorized construction and encroachment carried out in between public street and front of house of respondent No.4 by present appellants i.e. petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025. Both writ petitions were taken up for hearing together as facts pertain to same property i.e. hut/pan shop. 3. It is the case of Mrs. Kota Sithamma/respondent No.4 that she purchased land to an extent of 289 Sq.yds. as described in W.P.No.16408 of 2025, by way of registered sale deed dated 26.04.2019; and after obtaining prior approval from respondent Municipality on 20.02.2020, a two-storeyed house was constructed. Mr. Pydi Syamala Rao, husband of petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.6879 of 2025, tried to interfere with her possession, which led to filing of O.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadavalasa, by respondent No.4, seeking permanent injunction against him; ex-parte injunction was granted against him on 19.03.2020, and said suit is pending adjudication. 4. A thatched hut was constructed by Sri Pydi Syamala Rao on the land between road and house of respondent No.4 without obtaining prior permission from municipal authorities; nuisance was caused to inmates of 3 HCJ & NJSJ W.A.No.311 of 2026 respondent No.4, who submitted a representation dated 01.03.2021, seeking removal of unauthorized structure and encroachment made by P. Syamala Rao, who filed W.P.No.3338 of 2021, without impleading said complainant, seeking a direction to respondent authorities to grant an electricity service connection. W.P.No.3338 of 2021 was disposed of on 22.02.2021 directing electricity authorities to consider said application. 5. Respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.7285 of 2021 seeking a direction to municipal authorities to take appropriate action on her complaints dated 26.10.2020 and 01.03.2021. W.P.No.7285 of 2021 was disposed of on 01.04.2021 directing municipal authorities to consider her complaints. Notices under Sections 192, 193 and 360 of the A.P. Municipality Act were issued to Sri Pydi Syamala Rao on 20.05.2021, leading to filing of W.P.No.12043 of 2021 by him. This W.P.No.12043 of 2021 was disposed of on 09.03.2022 directing official respondents to treat final notice dated 30.05.2021 as show cause notice and representation of Sri Pydi Syamala Rao dated 24.05.2021 as an explanation thereto and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks. An enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner and eviction notice dated 30.06.2022 was issued to Sri Pydi Syamala Rao. Said eviction notice was never put to challenge and attained finality. C.C.No.823 of 2023 in W.P.No.12043 of 2021 was filed by respondent No.4, which was closed on 07.03.2025. 4 HCJ & NJSJ W.A.No.311 of 2026 6. W.P.No.26550 of 2022 was filed by Sri Pydi Syamala Rao without impleading either municipality or respondent No.4 as a party thereto. Interim protection was granted in W.P.No.26550 of 2022 on 22.08.2022. Respondent No.4, on her application, was impleaded as a party to said proceedings. During pendency of W.P.No.26550 of 2022, Sri Pydi Syamala Rao passed away on 31.05.2023 and his legal representatives were brought on record (i.e. present appellants) on 26.10.2024. 7. W.P.No.26550 of 2022 was disposed of on 08.11.2024 directing official respondents to follow due process of law. Pursuant thereto, action was initiated on 17.12.2024 for removal of encroachment, leading to filing of W.P.No.6879 of 2025 by the present appellants while relying on possession certificate which had earlier been clarified to be a fabricated one by concerned Tahsildar. On a representation dated 08.05.2025 filed by respondent No.4, respondent Corporation issued an endorsement dated 08.05.2025 stating that encroachments had not been removed due to pendency of W.P.No.6879 of 2025. W.P.No.16408 of 2025 was thus filed by respondent No.4 assailing the same. 8. Learned single Bench while considering entire facts and circumstances concluded that there was no merit in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 filed by present appellants and that they were chronic litigants who time and again keep approaching the Court without impleading necessary parties. It was further held that respondent No.4 i.e. petitioner in W.P.No.16408 of 2025 5 HCJ & NJSJ W.A.No.311 of 2026 successfully established that present appellants illegally occupied public space in front of her house, which was constructed after prior approval from the Municipality. 9. It is further noted in impugned order dated 04.02.2026, that time had been afforded to learned counsel representing appellants to seek instructions from appellants as to time required to vacate premises in question but no response was forthcoming. Ample opportunity had been afforded by authority to Sri Pydi Syamala Rao and notice dated 30.06.2022 directing eviction from premises in question had attained finality, as the same was never challenged by anyone. It was thus held that present appellants i.e. legal representatives of Sri Pydi Syamala Rao, were not entitled to any further notice or enquiry and were directed to vacate the premises within four weeks. W.P.No.16408 of 2025 filed by respondent No.4 herein was consequently allowed. Aggrieved therefrom, the present writ appeal has been filed by appellants i.e. writ petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025. 10. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argues that learned single Bench has grossly erred in passing impugned order dismissing writ petition filed by appellants; such a direction is extremely harsh because the hut/pan shop as reflected in photograph available on page No.62 of writ petition is the only source of livelihood for appellants; therefore, they should not be evicted therefrom. It is thus prayed that the present writ appeal be 6 HCJ & NJSJ W.A.No.311 of 2026 allowed by setting aside order dated 04.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.6879 of 2025. 11. Learned counsel for respondents submits that action for eviction of appellants from premises in question has been correctly taken in strict adherence to the provisions of law; appellants are encroachers upon the area which is public property and have no right whatsoever to continue in possession; therefore, dismissal of this writ appeal is sought. 12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their assistance. 13. Learned counsel for appellants was unable to deny that appellants/writ petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 do not have any vested right to continue in possession of hut/pan shop in question. It is candidly admitted that it is an encroachment which has been carried upon public land. Learned counsel is unable to point out any illegality in the procedure adopted by municipal authorities for eviction of appellants from premises in question. 14. Narration of facts in the foregoing paras clearly reveals that notice of eviction dated 30.06.2022 had indeed become final qua Sri Pydi Syamala Rao, who is now represented by his legal representatives. Another aspect to be noted is that writ petitioners have filed present writ appeal challenging order in question qua W.P.No.6879 of 2025 only, as filed by them. No appeal has been filed challenging said decision allowing W.P.No.16408 of 2025. Present writ appeal could have been dismissed on this premise alone. 7 HCJ & NJSJ W.A.No.311 of 2026 However, we have examined merits of the matter as well and find no ground whatsoever to cause interference. 15. We also do not find any merit in arguments raised by learned counsel for appellants that they should not be evicted from premises in question until and unless they are allotted an alternate site; no such prayer has been addressed in W.P.No.6879 of 2025, nor is there any scheme or policy on record issued by municipality in this regard to which reference has to be made. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this writ appeal is dismissed, while affording a further period of four (4) weeks from today to appellants to vacate the premises and remove all the articles etc. therefrom. In case needful is not done, authorities are at liberty to remove the encroachment without recourse to any further procedure. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No kbs 8 HCJ & NJSJ W.A.No.311 of 2026 96 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.311 of 2026 Dt: 29.06.2026 kbs