Disposed

Vasimalla Srinivasa Rao at Srinu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024WP/1764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an individual against the Chirala Municipality and Town Planning officer challenging interference with property possession and threat of demolition. The court directed authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's property without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property without following due process of law.

Vasimalla Srinivasa Rao at Srinu Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

1 Vl

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:.AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1764 OF 9r\0A

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vasimalla Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, S/o Vasimalla Mahipal, aged about 46 years, R/o 22-1-38, Heyerpet, Perala, Chirala, Bapatia District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Muntcpal Adnrinistration Department, A.P Secretariat buildings' Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of

¶13

Andhra Pradesh, Padmini Enclave 5^^ lane, 4/7, Mahatma Gandhi Inner

¶14

Ring Rd, Annapurna Nagar, Guntur Andhra Pradesh 522034

¶15

The Chirala Municipality, Rep ■ By its Commissioner, Chirala, Bapatia district. 4. The Town Planning officer, Chirala Municipality, Chirala Bapatia district. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in e ctrcums ances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^^, 4*^^ respondent and their Staff in interfering with possession of petitioners family property (jointiv « -» 0 in .n ol.. Z yards ,n Sy.No. 301/10, Heyerpet, Perala, Chirala, Bapatia District , and

¶16

taking steps to demolish the said house without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and direct the 3'^ respondents ' to d|sisrfrom demolition of petitioner's family property O’ointly owned with , ^ 22- 1-38 in an extent of 68 Sq. yards in S|;Ncy.^01/10, Heyerpet. Perala, Chirala, Bapatia District^{withoutfollowing} due process of law

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3"'^ , 4*^ respondents herein and their staff not to interfere with the possession of petitioner over his family property (jointly owned with brothers) i.e. house with D.No. 22-1-38 in an extent of 68 Sq. yards in Sy.No. 301/10, Heyerpet, Perala, Chirala, Bapatia District in any manner including trespass, dispossession, demolition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP MUNCIPAL ADMNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY (SC)

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 1764 OF 2024

¶27

Vasimalla Srinivasarao @ Srinu, S/o Vasimalla Mahipal, Aged about 46 years, R/o 22-1-38, Heyerpet, Perala, Chirala, Bapatla District.

¶28

... Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others.

¶31

... Respondents

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri Counsel for respondents : GP for Municipal Administration Sri M.Manohar Reddy, standing counsel.

¶33

:i ORDER ::

¶34

Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for^the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing on behalf of respondent No.l^and Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶35

Page 2 of 4

¶36

SRSJ WP No. 1764/2024

¶37

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with possession of petitioner’s property i.e. house bearing D.No.22-1-38 admeasuring 68 Sq.yards in Sy.No.301/10, Heyerpet, Perala, Chirala, Bapatla District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶38

Petitioner averred in the affidavit that originally, mother of the petitioner occupied the property in the year 1961 and since then his mother and later the petitioner^have been residing therein. On 18.01.2024, respondent No.4 along with respondent No.3 came to the house of the petitioner^and taken measurements stating that they would demolish the house property.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality would submit that Chirala Municipality^neither issued any notice to the petitioner nor attempted to^demolish the house bearing D.No.22-1-38 admeasuring 68 Sq.yardsⁱⁿ Sy.No.301/10, Heyerpet, Perala, Chirala, Bapatla District. Learned counsel would also submit that if the authorities iiitend to initiate any action, they will follow due process of law. ^

¶40

Page 3 of 4

¶41

SRSJ WP No. 1764/2024

¶42

In view of the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Municipality that the authorities are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner,^without going into merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment over the petitioner’s property i.e. D.No.22-1-38 admeasuring 68 Sq.yards in Sy.No.301/10, Heyerpet, Perala, Chirala, Bapatla District, without following due process of law. No costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 2^ SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶48

The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration,^Stateof Andhra Pradesh, Padmini Enclave, 5*^ lane, 4/7, Mahatma^GandhiInner Ring Rd, Annapurna Nagar, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522034

¶49

The Commissioner, Chirala Municipality, Chirala, Bapatla district.

¶50

The Town Planning Officer, Chirala Municipality, Chirala, Bapatia district. (Addressees 1 to 4 by RPAD)

¶51

One CC to SRI. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP ,High^Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶52

One CC to SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY, Standing Counsel [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/02/2024

ORDER

WP. No.1764 of 2024

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Vasimalla Srinivasa Rao at Srinu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasimalla Srinivasa Rao at Srinu v. the State of Ap

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

Challa Venkata Phani Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.S.A. Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Ap

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mungara Bhagavan Sankara Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sacchi Nagamani Vs the State of Ap

M/S Rr Edifice Private Limited Vs Sri.Shashibhushan Kumar