Venkata Siva Padhiva Vs the State of Ap

VENKATA SIVA PARDHIVA, S/O LATE VEMPARALA NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.55-22-13/7, H.B.COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONE II, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property, to an extent of 684 sq.yds, situated in Sy.No.41 part of Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits, Visakhapatnam

¶17

//2//

¶18

District, without following due process of law, and in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner therefrom, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refrain from doing so and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 direct the respondent not to interfere in any manner, whatsoever, with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property, an extent of 684 sq.yds. situated in Sy.No.41 Part of Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

//3//

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.30508 OF 2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposal of the 2^nd respondent in trying to acquire the petitioner’s property without resorting to the provisions of right to Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶30

It is submitted that the petitioner is in the possession of land admeasuring 682 square meters in Sy.No.41 part of Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. Since the date of purchase of property the petitioner is in possession of the property. The said property was purchased vide two separate registered sale deeds. It is submitted that the property is abutting the main road and the 2^nd respondent has been sending their men for making measurements with an intention of taking over the petitioner’s property for laying a road for public purpose.

¶31

The learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent on written instructions submits that 100 feet road is now proposed from Adavivaram Village to Sontyam junction and as on date 30 feet road is existed. It is also stated in the instructions that the respondent authorities had already published the same in

¶32

//4//

¶33

Visalandhra Telugu Daily and also in Indian Express News Papers also on 11.12.2024 and invited the objections about the proposal for widening the road from 30 feet to 100 feet road. It is submitted that the petitioner’s property would also be required for acquisition. It is also stated in the instructions that in pursuance of the paper notification the respondent authorities have not received any objections. The learned standing Counsel further submits that without submitting any objections to the paper notification the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel the respondents 1 to 3. Perused the material on record.

¶35

It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s property would be required for acquisition for laying of the road for public purposes. It is also the responsibility of the respondents to follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the event the property is required.

¶36

On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off at the admission stage directing the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from his property without following the due process of law i.e., invoking the provisions of Right to Fair

¶37

//5//

¶38

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other

¶39

acceptable preposition put forth by the respondent authorities.

¶40