APHC010046262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2701 OF 2026 Between: 1. KOTRA LAKSHMI NARAYANA, , S/O. YEDUKONDALU @ KONDALA RAO, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE R/O. KOTRAVARI STREET, 28TH WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. BAPATLA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. TOWN SURVEYOR, O/O BAPATLA MUNICIPALITY, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT, O/O. AT BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BAPATLA CIRCLE, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAPATLA TOWN POLICE 2 STATION, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. THAGARAPU SUVAMA LATHA, W/O MARIYADAS, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O RAJIVGAANDHI COLONY, 3RD WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. THAGARAPU MARIYADAS, , S/O VENKAIAH, AGE 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O RAJIVGAANDHI COLONY, 3RD WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. THAGARAPURAVI KUMAR, S/O MARIYADAS, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O RAJIVGAANDHI COLONY, 3RD WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHENNAKESAVULU KOTTE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI SC For MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Chennakesavulu Kotte, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Karthik Raja, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4. 2. Despite service of notice, no appearance is entered on behalf of unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 10. 3 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 7 in not removing the illegally erected sheds on the road Margin in front of the petitioner’s house causing obstruction for movement of vehicles, at Plot No.201 in Sy.No.562/1A, Rajivgandhi Colony, 3rd ward, Bapatla Town, Bapatla District. 4. It is contended that the petitioner had purchased the subject property on 13.04.2017, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1219/2017 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. Pursuant to the said purchase, the petitioner had obtained building permission from the 3rd respondent for construction of an RCC building. However, in the month of September, 2023, the unofficial respondents and some others encroached upon the road margin in front of the petitioner’s house. The petitioner obstructed the said encroachment. However, the unofficial respondents proceeded to erect a shed. 5. Thus, the petitioner and another person submitted a representation to the District Collector. Pursuant to the said representation, the petitioner was informed that the encroachments made on the road in September, 2023 had been removed to facilitate the free movement of vehicles. Despite the same, the unofficial respondents have erected sheds again in the same place where the earlier encroachments were removed. 6. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 16.07.2024 to the 8th respondent directing to remove the encroachment. However, the 8th 4 respondent did not take any steps. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in removing the sheds erected on the road margin in front of the petitioner’s house. 7. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that, based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 05.08.2024 to the unofficial respondents. However, no explanation was submitted by the unofficial respondents. It is further stated that, in coordination with the other departments and with the assistance of the 6th respondent, appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law. 8. The 1st respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that the 3rd respondent had removed the other illegal encroachments in September, 2023. However, the structures were re-erected. 9. Having regard to the fact that the unauthorized encroachments are admitted by the respondents, this Court is of the view that it is the bounden duty of the respondent authorities to protect public roads, footpaths, drains, parks, and other public spaces from unauthorized occupation or encroachment. In this regard, they are authorized and empowered under law to take all appropriate steps for the removal of the said encroachments and ensure that no such encroachment on public property is made by following due procedure. 10. Having regard to the same, and upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 5 the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate steps for removal of the subject unauthorized encroachments within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 03.09.2026 BSK 6 60 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2701 OF 2026 Dated: 03.09.2026 BSK