Pendyala Naga Venkata Subba Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
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. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
Judgment
Cause title
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District ...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in 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 herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the Petitioners building situated at D.No.5-37-7/3, Arundalpet, Guntur, 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 (0 (9). 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^ building situated at D.No.5-37-7/3, Arundalpet, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No. 106 given by Municipality). lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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.5-37- 7/3, No. Municipality), pending disposal of the above writ petition. District (Shop Arundalpet, Guntur, Guntur 106 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC for MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: V % APHC010541992024 B 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28262/2024 Between: Pendyala Naga Venkata Subba Rao AND ...PETITIONER
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner;
1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1 .GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 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: action building situated Petitioner’s D.No.5-37-7/3, of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the 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 Arundalpet, Guntur, 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 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.5-37-7/3, Arundalpet, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No. 106 given by Municipality) Constitution ”
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 D.No.5-37-7/3, Arundalpet, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No.106 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 intending to issue a notice under Section 146 of APMC Act, 1955, to the 3 0 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. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District.
3. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, SC for Municipalities [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
6. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.28262 of 2024 o 0 6 MAR 2025 M Currorsl Section . . 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 respondent No
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 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.