Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010287972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 15071/2026 Between: 1. MOHAMMAD AZEEZ AHMED, S/O. LATE MOHAMMAD BASHEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O.3-28-23, OPPOSITE PETROL BUNK, BRINDAVAN GARDENS CENTER, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522006. 22003. 2. TALLURU VENKATA CHANDRA SEKHAR,, S/O. TALLURU SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. F.NO. 4B, PIONEER URBAN APT, 2/2 BRINDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR - 522006. 3. MURIKIPUDI AMAR JANARDHANA KUMAR,, S/O. VENKATA KRISHNA RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O.SASANA STAMBHAM STREET. MAIN BAZAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. NTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 5 4. ADIGOPULA RAVI TEJA,, S/O.SIVA SHANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 5-143F30, INDIRA NAGAR, MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. 5. MOHAMMED MUBASHIR AHMED,, S/O. MOHAMMED NAZEER AHMED, REP. BY HIS SPA HOLDER, MOHAMMED ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.18- 18-72/3, RAJARAM STREET, CHINNA BAZAR, GU ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT., SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 2. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, , REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 7CRW PLUS RGM, GRAND TRUNK RD, OPPOSITE GANDHI PARK GUNTUR, LALAPET, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522003. ...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 respondent No.2 in proceeding to demolish and acquire portions of the petitioners' properties to the extent of the markings in premises bearing D.No.3-28-23,3- 28-22/1 and 3-28- 23/1 respectively, situated at Main Road, Brindavan Gardens, Guntur, for road widening beyond the existing and available 80 feet road, contrary to the G.M.C. Master Plan and without considering the objections/representation dated. 21-05-2026 submitted by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, and consequently direct the respondent No.2 not to proceed with any demolition of the petitionersstructures or acquisition of their properties to the extent of markings situated at D.No.3-28-23, 3-28-22/1 and 3-28-23/1 respectively, beyond the proposed 80 feet road width as contemplated under the existing G.M.C. Master Plan, except by following due process of law and to 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 direct the respondent No.2, not to demolish, or interfere with the petitioners properties situated in D.No.3-28-23, 3-28-22/1 and 3-28-23/1 respectively,. Main Road, Brindavan Gardens, Guntur, to any extent beyond the existing and available 80 feet road as contemplated under the G.M.C. Master Plan, without considering the petitioners' objections/representation dated 21-05- 2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. R V KOTESWARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 4 Order:- Ms. Sikhakolli Lakshmi Naga Harika, learned counsel representing Sri R.V. Koteswara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the proposed action of the 2nd respondent in trying to proceed with the demolition of the petitioners' property in pursuance of the markings set out by the 2nd respondent. 2. It is submitted that, as per the Master Plan, an 80 feet proposed road is in existence. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent intends to take over the properties belonging to the petitioners beyond the 80 feet proposed road margin. 3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 29.05.2026, directed the petitioners to submit their explanation to the notices received within a period of ten (10) days and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed on record the Speaking Order passed by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that the other property owners along Brundavan Gardens Main Road have fully co-operated with the 2nd respondent and have handed over their respective properties after accepting structural compensation and TDR. It is also stated that 80% of the road widening work has been completed and the construction of the drain has also progressed. The 2nd respondent has advised the petitioners to co-operate with the 2nd respondent with a sense of social 5 responsibility to accommodate the growing traffic needs of the public in the proposed road widening stretch. 5. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent ought not to have presumed the property belonging to the petitioners as public property and resorted to advising the petitioners to co-operate with a sense of social responsibility. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the drain was laid in the municipal land itself. It is also submitted that the extra space available in the municipal land is being used for public amenities such as laying of pipelines and that the 2nd respondent is carrying out the road widening strictly in accordance with the Master Plan and the approved Road Development Plan. 7. Considering the submissions, the respondents are directed to follow the due process of law by compensating the petitioners in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or by proposing any other acceptable alternative to the petitioners, in the event any extent of the petitioners' property is required for public purposes. It is also made clear that the respondents shall exhibit the same sense of social responsibility while acquiring the private property of the petitioners. 8. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.07.2026 PNS Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑