Disposed

Althuru Sudhakar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Mar 2023WP/7420/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to prevent road laying on petitioner's land. Court directed authorities to conduct a survey in presence of petitioner within 8 weeks and restrained interim dispossession without due process.

What did the court decide?

Directions to conduct survey within 8 weeks and restrain interim dispossession/interference without following due process of law.

Althuru Sudhakar Reddy Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7420 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to lay road through the land of the petitioner in an extent of 48 Sq. yards situated in Sy. No. 157-B, Ward No. 6, Chendodu Village, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, contrary to law and against to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 19(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents not to lay road through the petitioner’s land admeasuring to an extent of 48 Sq. yards situated in Sy. No. 157-B, Ward No. 6, Chendodu Village, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District without following due process of law in the interest of justice…”

¶6

The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the

¶7

land admeasuring to an extent of 48 Sq.Yds, situated in Sy.No.157-B, Ward No.6, Chendodu Village, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District vide registered gift deed No. 1212/2016 dated 02.11.2016. The petitioner is running a provision shop in the subject property. He is also paying property tax to the 6^th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

¶8

¶9

respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have visited the subject property 15

¶10

days back and marked the entire extent in which the petitioner’s shop is existing, to lay the road without following due procedure as contemplated under the Rules. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶11

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts mentioned in the writ petition and further requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶12

Learned Government Pleader on oral instructions has submitted that the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s subject property. But, however submitted that if survey is conducted, the entire issue will be resolved.

¶13

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶14

“1. The respondent No.6 with the assistance of the

¶15

7^th respondent, shall conduct a survey to demarcate the subject land and the road margin at Sy. No.157-B, Ward No.6, Chendodu Village, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District. This survey shall be conducted in the presence of the petitioner or his representatives.

¶16

For the purpose of enabling the petitioner to be present at the time of the survey, notice shall be given to the petitioner.

¶17

¶18

After the survey is conducted, if it is found that the petitioner has encroached into the road margin, it would be open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

¶19

This survey shall be conducted within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

¶20

Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere or dispossess the petitioner from the scheduled property without following due process of law.

¶21

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

Date : 24.03.2023 PSR/KBS

¶25

¶26

¶27

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.7420 OF 2023

¶29

Date: 24.03.2023

¶30

PSR/KBS

Althuru Sudhakar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Althuru Sudhakar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District Vs Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

S. v. B. Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.V.V. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Narayana Murthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

J v Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of Ap

J v Narasimhamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Managing Director Vs the State of Ap