Dismissed

Thirmalasetti Nalini v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2025WP/10763/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a threat to demolish premises. The Court held that since encroachment was admitted and possession was handed over to the 4th respondent following a civil suit, the petition could not be entertained further.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Thirmalasetti Nalini Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010208922025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3457]

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 10763/2025

Between:

Thirmalasetti Nalini

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.V BABY RANI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.P HEMACHANDRA

¶19

2.Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region

¶20

3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

-2-

¶23

W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.10763 OF 2025

¶26

ORDER :

¶27

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, appearing for respondent No.1, the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.2, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent. There is no representation for the 3^rd respondent.

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s premises bearing D.No.13-188, situated in Gajula Street, Venkatagiri town, Tirupati District.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased an open plot admeasuring 29 square yards in the year 1984 and has constructed a house on it and is residing therein. It is submitted that the petitioner is regularly paying applicable taxes to the municipality. It is alleged that the officials of the 2^nd respondent approached the petitioner’s premises on 15.04.2025 and threatened demolition. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent appears to have filed a complaint alleging encroachment by the petitioner. The

¶30

-3-

¶31

W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025

¶32

learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had constructed the house about 40 years ago and that there is no encroachment as alleged by any third party.

¶33

This Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed the respondent authorities not to demolish the petitioner’s premises, vide an order dated 28.04.2025.

¶34

The 2^nd respondent has also filed the counter along with sketch. I.A. No.2 of 2025 was filed by the proposed 4^th respondent for impleadment, and the application was allowed, thereby arraying him as the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent has filed his counter along with a vacate stay petition.

¶35

The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, in the counter, submits that the petitioner has encroached upon municipal land on the eastern and western sides, covering an extent of 340 square feet and has further encroached upon the municipal street on the western side by an additional 72 square feet. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent has conducted a survey in the presence of the petitioner and the extent of the encroachment was noted and recorded in the survey report. On account of the established encroachment, the 2^nd respondent is bound to remove the petitioner from the encroached property.

¶36

-4-

¶37

W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025

¶38

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, in the counter, submits that the grandfather of the 4^th respondent gifted the portion of the land to the 2^nd respondent for construction of a bus shelter. As the 2^nd respondent, instead of proposing a bus shelter, proposed to construct an elementary school, the grandfather of the 4^th respondent instituted a civil suit. The said suit was dismissed. Subsequently, the same was carried to the appeal in A.S. No.827 of 2023 before this Court, which was allowed by this Court on 30.01.2025. This Court directed the respondent authorities to conduct a survey, demarcate and hand over the possession to the plaintiffs (4^th respondent herein). Accordingly, the property was surveyed and possession was handed over to the 4^th respondent. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit and the appeal, the petitioner had encroached on the property of the 4^th respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner had endorsed the survey report, duly acknowledging the extent of encroachment. As such the petitioner cannot claim any redressal in the present writ petition.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the petitioner is willing to pay applicable charges to the municipality and the 4^th respondent.

¶40

-5-

¶41

W.P. No.10763 of 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025

¶42

Insofar as the prayer of the petitioner seeking declaration of action of the 2^nd respondent in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s premises is concerned, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition any further considering the admitted encroachment by the petitioner and the 4^th respondent was handed over the possession of the property, which was gifted by the grandfather of the 4^th respondent, pursuant to the cancellation of the gift deed by this Court. In these

¶43

circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶46

____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶47

Thirmalasetti Nalini v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirmalasetti Nalini 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kommi Chandrasekhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Ramesh Vs the State of Ap

M.Murali Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal

Tiyyagura Prabhakar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Radha Devi Vs the Principal Secretary to Government