Jakka Devaki Devi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010048962025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2750/2025 Between: Jakka Devaki Devi ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FORMUNCIPAL 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; to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D.No.5-98-29, Brodipet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 106 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 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. 5-98-29, Brodipet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 106 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated The Right Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ”

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation for respondent No.2.

#3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: 3 ^ 4 “....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 procedure contemplated Right Compensation Transparency Land Acquisition Fair Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”

#4. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs.

#5. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1400 of 2025 to this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAG ASSISTANT REGLS MA RAR SECTION OFFICER

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

#3. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy Advocate [OPUC] ^ [ORJC]' ® ^ Pra°de^sh®[OUTr 6. Three CD Copies (Along with a copy of order dt. 22.01.2025 in WP No. 1400 of 2025) TF Municipal Corporations, Advocate Court of Andhra HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 ■ ORDER WP.No.2750 of 2025 2 5 FEB 2025 I ^.. Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS ' APHC010025772025 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: 1400/2025 Between; Gudipudi Anjani Kumari, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ”7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; action of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the to issue a Writ or order or direction more particuiarly one in the of the nature Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon Petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 24 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 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.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No.24 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 "

#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.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City. Guntur District (shop No.24 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and carrying 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 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. Date: 22.01.2025 KGR JUSTICE V.SUJATHA