Alla Dhana Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, EARLIER (VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENF AUTHORITY) REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 8TH FLOOR, UDYOG BHAVAN, SIRIPURAM JN., VISAKHAPATNAM-530003

¶15

GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 29-2-20, NEHRU NAGAR, RAM NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003

¶16

SURAPANENI LAKSHMI PRASAD, S/O LATE DORASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NOS 201 AND 202, SILVER LEAF APARTMENTS, KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003.

¶17

SURAPANENI RADHA KRISHNA CHOWDARY, S/O LATE DORASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NOS 201, PALM BEACH APARTMENTS, KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003.

¶18

2

¶19

MAITREYA WELFARE SOCIETY, , REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE AND 30-8-24, BHANU STREET, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-530020.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the petitioner's plot in Plot No 38 covered by survey No 87 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam in GVMC Municipal Corporation Limits, without following due recourse to law or issuing any notice calling for explanation as illegal. irregular, irrational and arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner's plot No 38 covered by survey No 87 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam in GVMC Municipal Corporation Limits without following due process of law and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner's plot No: 38 covered by survey No: 87 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam in GVMC Municipal Corporation Limits without following due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶25

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 may be pleased to vacate the status quo orders granted in IA.No.1 of 2026 in WP.No.6170 of 2026 Dt. 03/03/2026 in the interest of justice and equity and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.KODATI RAMYA KRISHNA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

VIMAL VARMA VASI REDDY

¶30

GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶31

3

¶32

APHC010203822026

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

¶34

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

THURSDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 10170/2026

¶39

Between:

¶40

ALLA DHANA LAKSHMI, W/O A. RAMESH KUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O FLAT NO 401, BAY BREEZE RESIDENCY, NORTH BLOCK, PANDURANGAPURAM, VISKHAPATNAM CITY.

¶41

ALLA HARINI, W/O ALLA SATISH KUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O HNO 9-13-79/2, ROAD NO 3, CBM COMPOUND (EAST EXTENSION), VIP ROAD, VISAKHAPATNARNURBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶42

...PETITIONER(S)

¶43

AND

¶44

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR-522502.

¶45

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, , EARLIER (VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 8TH FLOOR, UDYOG BHAVAN, SIRIPURAM JN., VISAKHAPATNAM530003

¶46

GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 29-2-20, NEHRU NAGAR RAM NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003

¶47

SURAPANENI LAKSHMI PRASAD, S/O LATE DORASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NOS 201 AND 202, SILVER LEAF APARTMENTS, KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT,

¶48

4

¶49

VISAKHAPATNAM-530003.

¶50

SURAPANENI RADHA KRISHNA CHOWDARY, S/O LATE DORASWAMY NAIDU, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NOS 201, PALM BEACH APARTMENTS, KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003.

¶51

MAITREYA WELFARE SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE 30-8-24, BHANU STREET, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-530020.

¶52

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶53

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 respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the petitioners' plots in 33 and part of 34A admeasuring 350sqyds and the 2nd petitioner's house in plot No 32 and part of 33 admeasuring 350sqyds covered by survey No 87 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam in GVMC Municipal Corporation Limits, without following due recourse to law or issuing any notice calling for explanation as illegal, irregular, irrational and arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioners' plots in 33 and part of 34A admeasuring 350sqyds and the 2nd petitioner's house in plot No 32 and part of 33 admeasuring 350sqyds covered by survey No 87 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam in GVMC Municipal Corporation Limits, without following due process of law and to pass

¶54

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶55

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 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioners' plots in 33 and part of 34A admeasuring 350sqyds and the 2nd petitioner's house in plot No: 32 and part of 33 admeasuring 350sqyds covered by survey No: 87 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam in GVMC Municipal Corporation Limits, without following due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶56

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶57

5

¶58

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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.16.04.2026 in WP.No.10170 of 2026 pending final disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

¶59

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶60

1.M SOLOMON RAJU

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶62

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶63

2.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

¶64

6

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 6170 and 10170 of 2026

¶66

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶67

The petitioners in both the writ petitions are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with Plot No.38 and Plot Nos.33, part of 34A, 32 and part of 33, situated in Survey No.87 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam, within the limits of the GVMC Municipal Corporation.

¶68

This Court, while considering the admission of W.P. No.6170 of 2026 on 03.03.2026, directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the 6^th respondent filed a vacate petition, and the official respondents also filed a counter as well as a vacate petition.

¶69

It is brought to the notice of this Court that, on a reference to the title documents, there exists a 40-feet road on the northern side of the petitioners' property. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the Executing Court, in E.P.No.274 of 2019, permitted the decree-holder to remove the structures under the supervision of the officials of J.D.R. Nos.3 and 4, in the presence of the Bailiff. It was also ordered that the decree-holder is at liberty to recover the expenses incurred for removal of the structures from the first J.D.R., and a warrant to that effect was accordingly issued.

¶70

The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the petitioners have suppressed the covenants contained in their sale deeds. It is further submitted that the petitioners' averment that they had surrendered

¶71

7

¶72

61 square yards of land for formation of the 40-feet road is not found in the original Panchayat layout. It is stated that the original Panchayat layout suffered from overlapping boundaries within the petitioners' layout and that, under the Joint Settlement, the 40-feet road was agreed upon and regularized by VUDA vide BLP No.11/2002. It is also submitted that the minutes of meeting between the respondent Nos.4 and 5 with respondent No.6 in presence of 2^nd respondent together with regularization map are annexed. It is further submitted that the petitioners' claim that the respondents are attempting to dispossess them is unfounded and that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are only ensuring that the 40-feet road is restored and maintained.

¶73

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, despite the existence of the 40-feet road as reflected in the title documents, the respondents are interfering with the petitioners' property.

¶74

In view of the above submissions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that the roads vested in the Municipality are maintained in accordance with the width specified in the approved layout. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶76

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶77

Date:16.07.2026 RSD

¶78

8

¶79

160

¶80

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N