Makka Paidayya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

MUCHAKARLA RAMADEVI,, W/O GURUVARA NANDA KIOSHOR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D.NO. 8-2/1, WARD NUMBER 96, CHINNAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶14

KANDA PARDESHI NAIDU,, S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. OLD CHINNAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶15

MUMMANA SANYASI RAO,, S/O LATE SIMHADRI, D.NO. 10-23, OLD CHINNAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶16

NIRJOGI SURESH,, S/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. OLD CHINNAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶17

CH. NAGESWARA RAO,, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. OLD CBINNAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶18

AKULA GOWRI,, W/O GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D.NO. 1-7, NEAR RAMALAYAM, IRUVADA VILLAGE, SUHBAVARAM

¶19

2

¶20

HN, J W.P.No.15496_2025

¶21

MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶22

GOKADA VENKATA RAMANA,, S/O SURI, AGED 58 YEARS, D.NO. 10-12/16, P.F. COLONY, CHINAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PENDURTI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶23

RAPARTHI DEMUDU,, S/O MUSILINAIDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D.NO. 10-8, OLD CHINAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PENDURTHI MANDAL, CHINAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶24

TURIBILLI RAMANA,, S/O APPALANAIDU, AGED 51 YEARS, D.NO. 10-6/1, CHINAMUSIDIWADA OLD VILLAGE, WARD NO. 70 GVMC, SUJATHA NAGAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶25

...PETITIONER(S)

¶26

AND

¶27

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTIR DISTRICT.

¶28

THE GRATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GVMC, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TENNETI BHAVAN, RAMNAGAR, DASAPALLA HILLS, VISAKHAPATNAM53003.

¶29

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYVMRDA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, U.B. COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM J UNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶30

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶31

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM,.

¶32

THE TAHASILDAR, TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶34

3

¶35

HN, J W.P.No.15496_2025

¶36

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 toleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS the present writ petition is being filed for declaring the action of the respondents are without giving Notice or jurisdiction or following the due process of law or conducting proper enquiry, while existing two 60 feet master plan roads in government lands and then again the respondents are trying to laying a 60 feet master plan road in private land in Sy.No. 107, 105, 104 and 99 is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principle of natural justice and offends article 21 and 300-A and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere the petitioners peaceful possession and allowing the Writ Petition in the circumstances of the case and pass

¶37

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶38

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 pleased to stay the demolition of the petitioners house as per New master plan and pass

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶40

1.SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶43

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

4

HN, J

W.P.No.15496_2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 15496 of 2025

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

The petitioners are aggrieved by the unilateral action of the respondents in trying to lay road over the petitioners’ properties without issuing any notice or following the due process of law as laid down under the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013).

¶50

The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have field the writ petition apprehending the widening of the road and that the respondent authorities shall follow the due process of law in the matter.

¶51

It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent had issued a notice calling for objections for laying the proposed 60 feet road. It is submitted that the petitioners have not responded to the said notice. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 that any further action which would require acquisition of private property, including that of all petitioners, the respondent authority shall follow the due process of law.

¶52

It is made clear by the respondent authorities that the possession or enjoyment of the petitioners’ property shall not be disturbed without following the due process of law.

¶53

5

¶54

HN, J W.P.No.15496_2025

¶55