✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 22 Jan 2025

Sandana Sitaramaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

petition is disposed of directing the 2

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. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

Judgment

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK MEERAVALI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010029612025 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: 1507/2025 Between; Sandana Sitaramaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SHAIK MEERAVALI 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: 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.123-40, Tarakarama Nagar, Revenue Ward No. 56, MPL Road, Guntur, Guntur District and giving markings iv/ithout having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Article 14, 19(i)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No.2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated at D.No. 123-40, Tarakarama Nagar, Revenue Ward No.56, MPL Road, Guntur, Guntur District without following the procedure contemplated Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Compensation Right Fair The ”

#2. 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.

#3. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house ■ bearing Door No.Tarakarama Nagar, Revenue Ward No.56, MPL Road, Guntur, Guntur District, where the petitioner is residing. While the matter being so, the respondents are intending to give markings to their house for road widening purpose without following due process of law and without paying fair compensation to him. 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 \

#4. 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.

#5. 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 without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

#6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

#1. The Principal Development Amaravathi, Guntur District Secretary, Department, Municipal Secretariat Administration Buildings, Urban Velagapudi,

#2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District.

#3. One CC to Sri Shaik Meeravali Advocate [OPUC]

#4. One CC to Sri A S C Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations, Advocate [OPUC]

#5. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

#6. Three CD Copies TF u HIGH COURT DATED:22/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1507 of 2025 S % 0 6 FEB 2025 ^ Current Section . t ft/- ! DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS

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

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments