Bellamkonda Sarada v. The state of AP
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/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1- The Principal Development Amaravathi, Guntur District Secretary, Department…
Judgment
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY , Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR \ MUNICIPALITIES) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010039982025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2023/2025 Between: Bellamkonda Sarada The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.A K KISHORE REDDY AND ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER; 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: 10 “....to issue a Writ or order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D.no.6-19-43/A, lane, main road, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 35 given by Municipality) and giving markings without having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the Petitioner to highhanded and distress violative of Article 14, 19(l)(g), 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India Respondent No. 2 not to meddle direct with the Petitioners building situated at D.no.6-19-43/A, 10"^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013..." Respondents much less given by Municipality) Transparency consequently as nothing erroneous, illegal, No. 35 (Shop Land
#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.6-19-43/A, 10^^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.35 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and carrying on his 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
#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 as well as 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. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1- The Principal Development Amaravathi, Guntur District Secretary, Department Municipal Secretariat AdminTslfation Buildings, Urban Velagapudi, ‘ Guntur Municipal Corporation Respondents Office, Guntur, Guntur District ^^ntur Municipal Corporation
#3. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A S C Bose, SC for Municipalities, Advocate [OPUC] ^ ^a°de^sh'[OUTr Dev, High Court of Andhra
#6. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT D;S,tEP:28/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.2023 of 2025 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'''^ 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 28 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.