Mamillapalli Durga Devi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2025WP/2376/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No. 2376/2019; APHC; Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda; decided 23.07.2025; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14 and 21; demolition without show cause notice; Pedakakani Gram Panchayat; Guntur District; Paturu; D.No.1-141; steps demolished 12.02.2019; interim order 25.02.2019; due process of law; non-interference with property; writ petition disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: respondents directed to follow due process of law before taking any further action against the subject building D.No.1-141, and, without following due process of law, not to interfere with the subject property of the petitioner; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶¶38

Mamillapalli Durga Devi Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010052072019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2376/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

MAMILLAPALLI DURGA DEVI, R/O. D.NO.1-272, PATURU, PEDAKAKANI VILLAGE PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

PEDAKAKANI GRAM PANCHAYAT, PEDAKAKANI VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 topleased to issue a writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.No.1-41 of pedakakani Village and informed to the petitioner that the building of the petitioner will be demolished after two days is arbitrary and illegal and in violation for Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the building of the petitioner D.No.1-41 of Pedakakani Village, pedakakani Mandal, Guntur

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

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 issue a writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.NoI-141 of Pedakakani Village and informed to the petitioner that the building of the petitioner will he demolished after two days is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the building of the petitioner

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.G SESHADRI(SC FOR MPP ZPP)

¶23

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2376/2019

¶27

O R D E R:

¶28

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.No.1-141 situated at Paturu, Pedakakani Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District and in informing the petitioner that the building will be demolished after two days is illegal and arbitrary.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the building bearing No.1-141 in an extent of 242 Sq.yds in Pedakakani Village, Guntur District having purchased from one K.Prameela Devi through registered sale deed No.704/2012 dated 06.02.2012. While so, the respondent authorities without issuing any show cause notice and without giving opportunity to submit his explanation, demolished the part of the building i.e., steps attached to the house on 12.02.2019 and that there is every likelihood of authorities for demolishing the other part of the building also.

¶31

At the time of admission i.e., on 25.02.2019, when the matter is taken up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioner furnished some photographs showing demolition effected to the petitioner‘s house and neighbor. As the

¶32

¶33

photographs depict demolition undertaken by the respondent authorities and admittedly no notice was issued to the petitioner. As such, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order, which reads as follows:

¶34

“ Having prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is directed not to demolish the petitioner’s house bearing No.1-141 in an extent of 242 Sq.yds situated at Pedakakani Village, Guntur District, until further orders.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of interim orders passed by this Court, the subject building was neither demolished nor interfered so far.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that as of now the subject building was not demolished and further submits that if at all the respondents intend to demolish the building of the petitioner, they would follow due process of law.

¶37

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents to follow due process of law, if at all the respondents intend to take further action against subject building of the petitioner. Without following due process of law, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the subject property of the petitioner.

¶38