Kolla Anjaneyulu v. The State of A.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of directing respondent No
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. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.01.2025 KGR
Judgment
Cause title
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28303/2024 Between: Kolla Anjaneyulu ...PETITIONER
AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A K KISHORE 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: 2
ORDER :
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 the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D.No.5-98-33 to 35, Brodipeta, Revenue Ward 9, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No.108 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.5-98-33 to 35, Brodipeta, Revenue Ward 9, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No.108 given by Municipality)…...
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 building bearing Door No.5-98-33 to 35, Brodipeta, Revenue Ward 9, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No.108 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 his 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 compensation.
Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, informed this Court that they are 3 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 respondent No.2 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. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.01.2025 KGR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of directing respondent No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; 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 31 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.