Disposed¶35

Thoomati Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2025WP/31060/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized construction on 100-feet road margin; Gudur Municipality; Town Planning Officer; Survey No. 576A East Gudur Village Ward No. 3; obstruction of ingress and egress; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14, 21, 300-A; Section 151 CPC interim application; APSPDCL electricity connection to unauthorized structures; removal within four weeks; municipal inaction; Tirupati district.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to ensure no further construction on the road margin by anybody, to initiate appropriate action for removal, and to remove the unauthorized construction within four (04) weeks from receipt of the order; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶35

Thoomati Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Commissioner, Gudur Municipality and Town Planning Officer) in not preventing and removing unauthorized constructions made by third parties on the 100-feet road margin abutting Survey No. 576A, East Gudur Village, Ward No. 3, Gudur Municipality, which obstruct the petitioner's ingress and egress, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to ensure that no further construction is taken up on the road margin by anybody, to initiate appropriate action to remove the unauthorized construction, and the unauthorized construction shall in any event be removed within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the order; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Harinath.N, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against the Commissioner, Gudur Municipality and the Town Planning Officer for failing to prevent and remove unauthorized construction by third parties on the 100-feet road margin abutting Survey No. 576A, East Gudur Village, Ward No. 3, Gudur Municipality, which allegedly obstructed the petitioner's ingress and egress. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3, on written instructions, stated that field staff inspected the site, confirmed unauthorized construction on the road margin (on which any construction is impermissible), halted the ongoing work, and undertook to follow due process. Recording these submissions, the Court directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to ensure no further construction on the road margin by anybody, to initiate appropriate removal action, and mandated removal of the unauthorized construction within four weeks from receipt of the order. No costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010601012025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3457]

¶6

WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31060/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

THOOMATI SRINIVASA RAO, , S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 16-15-972/1, 3RD STREET, SAI NAGAR, NELLORE CITY, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUPATI, DISTRICT, TIRUPATI.

¶15

THE GUDUR MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, GUDUR MUNICIPALITY, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APSPDCL), GUDUR SECTION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

pleased topleased to Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent - Commissioner, Gudur Municipality, and 4th respondent - Town Planning Officer, in not preventing and removing the illegal and unauthorized constructions made on the 100 feet road margin abutting Survey No. 576A, East Gudur Village, Ward No.3, Gudur Municipality, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India Direct the respondents to forthwith inspect the site and remove the illegal structures obstructing ingress and egress to the petitioner's property, and to ensure that no electricity or civic amenities are provided to such unauthorized constructions and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 respondents not to permit illegal construction being made on the road margin abutting Survey No. 576A, Gudur, so as to prevent obstruction to the petitioner's access to his property or provide any electricity connection to the illegal structure pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pas

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.N RAVI PRASAD

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 31060 of 2025

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in removing the unauthorized construction taken up by third parties on the 100-feet road margin. It is submitted that the petitioner’s property is abutting the main road; however, some third parties have started constructing on the road margin only to extract money from the neighboring plot owners. It is alleged that they are constructing a commercial complex, and the said construction is also causing hindrance to the petitioner’s right of ingress and egress to his property.

¶34

The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on written instructions, submits that the field staff has conducted an inspection and confirmed that unauthorized construction is being taking up on the road margin, and that any construction on the road margin is not permissible. As such, the ongoing work was immediately halted. It is stated in the written instructions that appropriate action would be taken against the unauthorized construction by following due process of law.

¶35

Recording the said submissions, the writ petition is disposed off, directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to ensure that no further construction is taken up on the road margin by anybody and that appropriate action to remove the same to be initiated by respondent Nos.3 and 4. In any event, the unauthorized construction shall be removed within a period of four (04)

¶36

¶37

weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. There shall be no order

¶38

as to costs.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶41

Date:12.11.2025 NKA

¶42