Disposed

Khazipur Naseerulla Khan, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2026WP/26688/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the identification and marking of Masjid property for road widening without notice. The respondents submitted that the marking is only a survey and planning exercise and any future action will follow due process including notice acquisition and compensation. The court disposed of the petition directing respondents not to demolish the building without due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to demolish the subject building without following due process of law.

Khazipur Naseerulla Khan, Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010489952026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 18^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26688 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Khazipur Naseerulla Khan,, S/o K.Habibulla Khan, aged about 50 years, Occ Muthavalli Usman Masjid Committee, Kajoor, D.No.26-6, Kajoor, Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh - 517002.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Principal Secretaiy to Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Tulluru Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522237.

¶12

The Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh - 517002

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: D KISHORE KUMAR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO: 26688 OF 2026

¶20

The Court made the following Order:

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 23-02-2026 along with 87 worshippers in relation to identifying the subject property for acquisition bearing D.No.26-6 Kajoor, Chittoor for the road improvement and widening work without issuing any notice.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have identified and marked the subject property belonging to the Masjid for road widening without issuing any notice. The respondents' action would prejudice the petitioner and other worshippers who offer prayers in congregation and who have also submitted their representation to the authorities.

¶24

When the matter has been taken up for consideration today, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Municipality has placed before the Court a copy of instructions received by him in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect as follows:

¶25

“It is also respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the land situated opposite the subject property is

¶26

¶27

Government land is factually incorrect. As per the available official records, the land situated opposite the subject property is private land bearing Survey No.165 of Iruvaram Revenue Village and is not Government land. It is further submitted that the owner of the said private land has consented to the proposed 100-feet road widening insofar as the affected portion of his land is concerned. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the said land is Government land is contrary to the available official records and is hereby denied.

¶28

It is further submitted that, as per the observations recorded during the site inspection/survey, the existing Masjid structure is found to have extended approximately 3 feet in depth into the road portion. The said factual position has been taken into consideration while identifying and marking the proposed road alignment/widening portion under the Road Development Plan.

¶29

It is respectfully submitted that the identification and marking of the affected portion under the Road Development Plan is, at the present stage, only a survey and planning exercise. It does not constitute an order for demolition, nor does it amount to commencement of forcible dispossession or demolition proceedings against the petitioner or the subject property.

¶30

It is therefore submitted that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding immediate demolition or forcible dispossession is premature and unfounded. The Municipal Authorities have not undertaken any demolition or forcible dispossession and have not taken any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the subject property.

¶31

It is further submitted that any action that may be required in for implementation of the approved road widening proposal shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and only after following the procedure applicable to such action, including the statutory requirements relating to notice, acquisition, consent, compensation or other applicable procedure, wherever required.”

¶32

¶33

Having regard to the above, as it has been stated by the respondents that they would follow the procedure under law, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to demolish the subject building without following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶35

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶36

Dated: 18-09-2026 MSI

¶37

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 26688 OF 2026

¶40

Dated: 18-09-2026 MSI

Khazipur Naseerulla Khan, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khazipur Naseerulla Khan, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases