Gudipudi Anjani Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

1. Gokavarapu Priya Aruna Raja Kumari, W/o Venkata Satya Durga Prasad, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o D.No.7/258-A, Tilak Road, Market Center, Gudivada, Krishna District.

2. Challa Soma Radhika Lakshmi Kumari, Challa Soma Radhika Lakshmi Kumari W/o Challa Venkata Durga Visveswara Narasimha Krishna Vara Prasad, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o D.No.76-5-1 lA, Balaji Home Street, Kamakoti nagar, Bhavani Puram, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District (Erstwhile Krishna District).

3. Grandhi Bharata Mallika Ratna Kumar, W/o Late Grandhi Manoj Kumar, Aged 55 years, Occ; Housewife, Pandurangapuram, Vishakhapatnam, Vishakhapatnam District. AND ...PETITIONERS —

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 th^ 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 6-19- 43, Arundalpet, between 10, lanes, Guntur City, Guntur District, and giving markings without having any right or authpfity highhandedly and subjecting the Petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Articles 14, 19(i)(g), 21 and 300 A of the Respondents much less the Respondent No.2 not to meddle with the Constitution of India and consequently direct 11 Petitioners building situated at D.No 6-19-43, Arundalpet, between 10, 11 lanes, Guntur City, Guntur District. ^ 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 Petitioner’s possession enjoyment peaceful D.No 6-19-43, Arundalpet, between 10, 11 building lanes, Guntur City, Guntur situated District, 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 ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNC MUNC CORPORATION ^ The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010546182024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28593/2024 Between; Gokavarapu Priya Aruna Raja Kumari and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

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

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

2.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 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 the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in touching upon Petitioner’s building situated D.No.6-19-43, Arundalpet, between 10, 11 lanes, Guntur City, Guntur District 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.6-19-43, Arundalpet, between 10, 11 lanes, Guntur City, Guntur District ”

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.

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

....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 Fair procedure Compensation Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

contemplated Transparency Right Acquisition Land

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.

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/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Munidpal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District.

3. One CC to Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUCf]

4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn & Urban Dev, High Court of Andhfa Pradesh. [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, SC for MUNC & MUNC Corporation.-^ [OPUC]

Three CD Copies. ( Along with the Copy of the Order in WP.No.1400 of 2025, dated 22.01.2025) HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.28593 of 2024 ^^ANOf^ X 19 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION 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.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: ORDER: 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: action of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring to issue a Writ or order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the 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.