Disposed

Patnam Subbarayudu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2024WP/4840/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the demolition of petitioner's property by the Municipal Corporation. The court directed the authorities to follow due process of law and not interfere with the petitioner's possession until such process is completed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent authorities to follow due process of law and not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property.

Patnam Subbarayudu Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR I

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4840 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Patnam Subbarayudu, S/o. Patnam Subbarayudu, Aged 40 years, R/o Palempalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring^{theactionofthe} Respondents in taking steps to dispossess the Petitioner from the schedule property by demolition of the property in Door No.81/192 (earlier Door No. 1/193) in D.No.360/2 in Ward No.1 of Palempalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District being contrary to the principles of natural justice and provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and Rules thereof as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, unconstitutional and unreasonable and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner from the schedule property by demolition of the property in Door No.81/192 (earlier Door No. 1/193) in D.No.360/2 in Ward No.1 of Palempalli Village,

¶14

Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without following the due process of law and without payment of any compensation. lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

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 Respondents not to demolish the property in Door No.81/192 (earlier Door No.1/193) in D.No.360/2 in Ward No.I of Palempalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SODUM ANVESHA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SURESH KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following:

¶19

ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.4840 OF 2024

¶21

Between:

¶22

Patnam Subbarayudu, S/o Patnam Subbarayudu, Aged 40 years, R/o Palempalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ... Petitioner

¶23

And

¶24

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P.Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and another.

¶25

... Respondents ; Mrs.Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the petitioner ; GP for Municipal Counsel for respondent No.l Administration ; Sri K.Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondent No.2 Reddy, Standing Counsel

¶26

ORDER

¶27

declare the action of The above writ petition is filed to respondent authorities in taking steps to dispossess the i.e. D.No.81/192 in from the schedule property petitioner Palempalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, D.No.360/2, Ward No.l /

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

SRS, J W.P.No.4840 of 2024

¶30

YSR Kadapa District, without following due process, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

Heard Mrs.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that^the petitioner purchased the property bearing D.No.81/192 in D.No.360/2, Ward No.l, Palempalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, under a registered sale deed dated 02.07.2001 and he has been paying taxes. Respondent No.2 without issuing any notice, came to the said property^inthefirst week of February, 2024 and tried to dispossess the petitioner.

¶33

Sri P.Anand Surya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on instructions of the Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation would submit that the Corporation undertakes the developmental activity in the City including^road widening from Palempalli 04 roads to Palempalli Bypass^road,as per the Master Plan of Kadapa Municipal Corporation. In the

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

SRS, J W.P.No.4840 of 2024

¶36

? /

¶37

said process, markings were given. He also would submit^that the Corporation will follow due process i.e. either to issue TDR or pay compensation to the building owners, then only the Corporation will proceed with the developmental activity. He further would submit that if any encroachment is found, the authorities will follow due process.

¶38

In view of instructions submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the Writ Petition is^disposedof directing the respondent authorities to follow due^processoflaw in respect of petitioner’s property bearing D.No.81/192 in D.No.360/2, Ward No.l, Palempalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Till such time, the authorities shall not interfere with petitioner’s possession. There shall^benoorderas to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall

¶40

stand dismissed.

¶41

SDI- K. TATA RAO //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR /li^

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat^at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶45

The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

¶46

One CC to M/S. SODUM ANVESHA Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SRI. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CCs to GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP, High^Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶49

Two CD Copies.

PSD

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.4840 of 2024

tn
2 3 M 202‘i
O o»,
Current Section ^

¶56

DISPOSING OFTHEWP WITHOUT COSTS

Patnam Subbarayudu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patnam Subbarayudu 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

M/s. Jp Ram Infra Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Pedda Mallikarjuna Vs Proddatur Municipality

Medarametla Tirish Kumar Vs the State of Ap

Jalla Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velko Infratech Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary to Government Finance Department

L. Narasimha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh