MADDALI VENKATA CHAITHANYA SANDEEP v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: V.SUJATHA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-01-31. MADDALI VENKATA CHAITHANYA SANDEEP v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (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: 28261 OF 2024 Between: Maddali Venkata Chaithanya Sandeep, S/o Kameswara Rao, Aged Brodipeta, about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o D. No. 5-21-26,2/3 Guntur, Guntur District ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, District Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur its Commissioner, 2. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Represented by District Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court more particularly one may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction of the in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action touching upon the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 in Guntur, Guntur Petitioners building situated at D. No. 6-19-38, Brodipeta, markings without District (Shop No. 25 given by Municipality) and giving the Petitioner to having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting and violative of distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded of India and Article 14, 19 (i) (g), 21 and 300 A of the Constitution No. 2 not consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent D. No. 6-19-38, to meddlp with the Petitioners' building situated at by Municipality). Brodipeta, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No.
25 given lA NO: 1 OF 2024 circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be not to meddle with pleased may be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 2 the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building situated at D. No. 6-19-38, Brodipeta, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No. 25 given by Municipality), pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A K KISHORE REDDY DEV Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN AP The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] ii (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: 28261/2024 Between: ... PETITIONER Maddali Venkata Chaithanya Sandeep AND ... RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others 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: ORDER: Constitution of India This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the seeking the following relief; one In the to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly MANDAMUS declaring the action of the nature of WRIT OF touching upon Respondents herein particuiarly Respondent No. 2 in the Petitioner’s building situated at D. No. 6-19-38, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District (Shop No. 25 given by Municipaiity) and giving and markings without having any right or authority highhandedly iilegal, erroneous, subjecting the petitioner to distress as nothing but and 300-A of the highhanded and violative of Article 14, 19(i)(g), 21 Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents much building less the Respondent No. 2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s District (Shop situated at D. No. 6-19-38, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur No. 25 given by Municipality) 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Administration and Urban Development for respondent Pleader for Municipal Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation for No. 1 and learned Standing respondent No. 2. learned counsel for the petitioner would 3. During the course of hearing this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the submit that the issue involved in W. P. No. 1400 of 2025 and order dated 22. 01. 2025 passed by this Court in also. The same is not requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition operative learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The disputed by the portion of the said order, reads as under: “....
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. ” 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 shall be no order as to passed by this Court in W. P. No. 1400 of 2025. There costs. 5. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 22. 01. 2025 order. No order as to passed by this Court in W. P. No. 1400 of 2025 to this costs. Petition shall stand Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ closed.
SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGI^AR //TRUE COPY// SECtTDN OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration Velagapudi, and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, 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] Court of 4. Two CCs to GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP, High Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies (Along with Copy of Orderd dated 22. 01. 2025 in WP. No. 1400 of 2025) HIGH COURT DATED;31/01/2025 ORDER WP. No. 28261 of 2024 ^ ■ g 0 “I MAR 2C25 Current oeciiun , WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS 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: ...
PETITIONER Gudipudi Anjani Kumari AND ... RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and another 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: 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. 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 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. LH 4 F 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. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 22. 01. 2025 KGR
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.