Battula Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (MA AND UD) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522001.

¶13

THE ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APCRDA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, APCRDA PROJECT OFFICE, RAYAPUDI POST, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237.

¶14

THE ESTATE OFFICER, ESTATE DEPARTMENT, APCRDA, UNIT-I, NAVULURU, APCRDA PROJECT OFFICE, RAYAPUDI POST, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237.

¶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 toissue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent No.3, in attempting to demolish the Petitioners corrugated iron sheet shed situated in the land admeasuring 488.5 Sq. Yards or 408.43 Sq. Meters, bearing Door No.81-2, situated at Nowlur Village,

¶17

2

¶18

Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, without issuing any notice to the Petitioner and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, a colourable exercise of power and contrary to the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the Petitioners corrugated iron sheet shed and not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property except by following due process of law, and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 direct the respondents, not to demolish or remove the petitioner's corrugated iron-sheet shed situated in the land admeasuring 488.5 Sq. Yards or 408.43 Sq. Meters, bearing Door No.81-2, situated at Nowlur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.S PRANATHI

¶25

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 25618/2026

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶32

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent No.3, in attempting to demolish the Petitioners corrugated iron sheet shed situated in the land admeasuring 488.5 Sq. Yards or 408.43 Sq. Meters, bearing Door No.81-2, situated at Nowlur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, without issuing any notice to the Petitioner and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, a colourable exercise of power and contrary to the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the Petitioners corrugated iron sheet shed and not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property except by following due process of law, and pass such other order or orders …”

¶33

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner got 1/4^th share of the property (122.12 Sq. Yards) by inheritance. The total property is 488.5 Sq. Yards, located at Door No. 81-2, Nowlur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. On 07.10.2023, two other family members namely Battula Nageswaramma and Battula Nagamalleshwara Rao gave up their 3/4^th share in favour of the petitioner through a Relinquishment Deed. After this, the petitioner became the full owner of the entire property. Since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner built a small shed with iron sheets on the property for his own use. Recently,

¶34

4

¶35

the 3^rd respondent /Estate Officer and his staff came to the property and instructed him to vacate the land. They also threatened to demolish the shed without giving any written notice or order. The actions of the officials are illegal, and violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶37

During the course of hearing, the learned Standing counsel representing respondent No.2 has furnished copy of instructions dated 10.09.2026 issued by the Commissioner, APCRDA, wherein it is stated that as per the revenue records, Survey No.81 of Nowlur (Navuluru) Village has no sub-division bearing No.81-2, and the Door No.81-2 relied upon by the petitioner does not correspond to the location of the schedule property. It is stated that as per the Award No.3/1990 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), VGTUDA, Vijayawada and Land Acquisition Officer, the land in Survey No.81/1 and Survey No.82 of Nowlur Village was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and compensation was awarded to Smt.Battula Anjamma, (grandmother of the petitioner) with the consent of her four sons for payment of compensation and the petitioner claimed 1/4^th share is traceable to the Sri Battula Ramaiah.

¶38

(a) It is further stated that as per the Survey Report, though the petitioner’s document shows an extent of 488.5 Sq.yards, the extent actually encroached on the ground comprises Green Belt land of 402 Sq. Yards, Utilities land of 14 Sq. Yards, and S-3 Zone land of 302 Sq. Yards, all forming

¶39

5

¶40

part of the Approved Layout, Amaravati Township, L.P.No.5/2000, and not of any approved private layout. The construction put up by the petitioner comprises side walls and an iron-sheet shed, and is an unauthorized structure. It is further stated that no action was initiated by Estates Officer, however, since it is an unauthorized construction, necessary action shall be initiated on unauthorized construction following the due procedures. Learned Standing counsel during the course of arguments, further stated that the petitioner is intending to erect a permanent structure in the place of shed which is already exists.

¶41

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property except by following due process of law. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from taking any action in accordance with law, if so warranted. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed.

¶43

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶44

Dated 11.08.2026 KA

¶45

6

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO: 25618/2026

¶48

Dated 11.08.2026 KA

Battula Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Battula Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases