Mattupalli Bhagya Lakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jan 2025
- Bench
- V SUJATHA
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of directing the 2"^^ respondent not to interfere with the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR sEcrnbN officer Buildings, Velagapudi, Annaravathi, Guntur District. 2 The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal…
Judgment
Cause title
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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the Petitioner^ building situated at D.No. 6-5-50, 5‘^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No- 55 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the Petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Article and 300 A of the Constitution 19(i)(g), of India and 14, 21 consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No.2 not to meddle with the Petitioners building situated at D.No. 6-5-50, 5th lane, Arundalpet, Guntur Guntur District (Shop City, No- 55 4 Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. lA NO: 1 OF 202*; 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 meddle with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building situated 50, 5'' lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No; 55 given by Municipality) without following the procedure Right to Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 writ petition. contemplated under The and Transparency in Land Acquisition, pending disposal of the above Fair Compensati at D.No. 6-5- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C. BOSE, SC for MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: 4 APHC010025742025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 1401/2025 Between: Mattupalli Bhagya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)
2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: <4
ORDER:
2 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: r- f action of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring "... to issue a Writ or order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D.No. 6-5-50, 5"’ iane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 55 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having any right or authority highhandedly the petitioner to distress as nothing but iiiegal, and subjecting 19(i)(g), 21 and erroneous, highhanded and violative of Articie 14, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentiy direct the Respondents much tess the Respondent No. 2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-5-50, 5"’ iane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 55 given by Municipality) without foliowing the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiiitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing Door No.6-5-50, 5"^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District / ] (shop No.55 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and carrying on her own business. While the matter being so, the respondents are intending to give markings to their shop for road widening purpose without following due process of law and without paying fair compensation to her. However, the case of the petitioner is also that the respondents have orally informed that they will give TDR certificate instead of fair compensation. 3
Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, informed this Court that they are intending to issue a notice under Section 146 of APMC Act, 1955, to the petitioner and follow the procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 much less the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Operative part
In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2"^^ respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner subject property without following the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR sEcrnbN officer Buildings, Velagapudi, Annaravathi, Guntur District. 2 The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Municipal CorporaTion Office, Guntur, Guntur District.
3. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose , SC for Municipalities [OPUC] Municipal Administration and Urban Development
5. Two CCs to GP for High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
6. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:22/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1401 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS 'of ANOH^^ r 0 7 FEB 2025 I ^ Current Section .lo .S
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of directing the 2"^^ respondent not to interfere with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Right to Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; APMC Act, 1955 — s. 146; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 — ss. 146, 147; Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Jan 2025. The bench was V SUJATHA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.