Yarlagadda Satish v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
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 ' S N OFFICER
Judgment
Cause title
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 Petitionei^s particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the herein building situated at D.no.6-19-43, 10th lane, main road, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.34 given by Municipality) and giving markings or authority highhandedly and subjecting the without having any right 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 Petitioners building situated at D.no.6-19-43, 10th lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.34 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building situated at D.No.6-19- 43, 10**^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.34 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, pending disposal of the above writ petition. 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: V % APHC010039642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2057/2025 Between; Yarlagadda Satish AND ...PETITIONER
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ’r
ORDER:
2 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: 10‘^ action Petitioner’s of WRiT OF MANDAMUS deciaring the to issue a Writ or order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of the Respondents herein particulariy Respondent No.2 in touching upon situated building D. No. 6-19-43, lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.34 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having any right authority highhandedly and subjecting the petitioner to distress nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Articles 14, India and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-19-43, 10'^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 34 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to and pass ...” 21 and 300-A of the Constitution 19(i)(g),
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 I bearing D.No.6-19-43, lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.34 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and carrying on his own business. While the matter being so, the respondents intending to give markings to their shop 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 corripensation. 3
Today, when the matter came up for hearing, 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 as well as 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 without following the procedure as 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 ' S N OFFICER
The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban BuHd Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Comn^S corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District. Corporation, Guntur Municipal
3. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Municipal Administration and Urban Development
6. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.2057 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP 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"'^ 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; 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 29 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.