Disposed

Tangudu Kalavathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026WP/26739/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition wherein petitioners challenged the Srikakulam Municipal Corporation's attempt to demolish their residential house and vacant land claiming road formation. The court directed respondents not to take coercive measures for demolition or dispossession without following the due process of law under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, citing violations of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the respondents not to take any coercive measures for demolition of structures or dispossession of the petitioners from the subject property without due process of law. The petition is disposed of.

Tangudu Kalavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010491782026

¶2

[3458]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26739/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

TANGUDU KALAVATHI, W/O. LATE TANGUDU KAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 11-7-25, MANDALA VEEDHI, PATHA SRIKAKULAM WARD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

TANGUDU RAJU,, S/O. LATE TANGUDU KAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BUSINESS, RIO. CHINNA BARATAM STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

TANGUDU SYAM SUNDAR,, S/O. LATE TANGUDU KAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. CHINNA BARATAM STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

TANGUDU HARI KRISHNA,, S/O. LATE TANGUDU KAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. CHINNA BARATAM STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

THE SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE,

¶17

¶18

SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 a Writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the high-handed, arbitrary, and illegal action of the Respondents particularly the 2nd Respondent Municipal Corporation in attempting to enter upon, mark, dispossess, and demolish the residential house building, compound wall, and the house site admeasuring 516.88 Square Yards belonging to the 1st Petitioner, as well as the adjoining vacant patta land admeasuring 1,431.52 Square belonging to Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in T.S. No. 96 /R.S.No.168 situated at Mandala Veedhi, Patha Srikakulam Ward, Srikakulam Town, for the purpose of road formation/road widening based on local representations, without issuing statutory notice and without following the due process of law under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) or the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, as illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents, their officers, subordinates, and field staff not to interfere in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners, not to dispossess the Petitioners from the subject constructed house site and the adjoining vacant land, and not to demolish any portion of the residential house building and compound wall, except in strict accordance with the procedure established by law

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 dispossess/demolish the Petitioners from the constructed house site admeasuring 516.88 Sq. yards and the adjoining vacant land admeasuring 1,431.52 Sq. yards, in T.S.No.96 / R.S.No.168, situated at Mandala Veedhi, Patha Srikakulam Ward, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition,

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

¶27

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

Heard Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶32

The instant writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent No.2 Corporation in attempting to enter upon, mark, dispossess, and demolish the residential house building, compound wall, and the house site admeasuring 516.88 Square Yards belonging to the 1^st petitioner, as well as the adjoining vacant patta land admeasuring 1,431.52 Square Yards belonging to the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in T.S.No.96/R.S.No.168 situated at Mandala Veedhi, Patha Srikakulam Ward, Srikakulam Town.

¶33

It is contended that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4jointly purchased a total extent of 2,226.40 Square Yards of vacant land situated on the southern row of C.C.Road, Mandala Veedhi, Patha Srikakulam Ward, Srikakulam Town, forming part of Revenue Sy.No.168 and Town Survey No.96 by way of registered sale deed bearing Document No.2078 of 2022 dated 03.03.2022. Out of the total extent of land, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have executed a registered settlement / Gift Deed bearing Document No.12442 of 2024 dated 22.02.2024 of an extent of 516.88 Square Yards in favour of their mother, the petitioner No.1 herein. The balance extent of 1709.52 Square Yards is in the joint ownership of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The same is vacant site. The petitioner No.1, intending to construct an individual residential building,

¶34

¶35

submitted an application for building permission in respect of the land gifted in her favour. After due verification, the respondent No.2 had granted building permission vide Building Permit Order No.1085/0077/B/SRI/MET/2024 dated03.05.2024 for construction of an individual residential building consisting of Stilt+Ground+2 Upper Floors. It is further contended that out of the balance extent of 1709.52 Square Yards, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 alienated an extent of 278 Square Yards of land byway of registered sale deed bearing Document No.19435 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024. Presently, the petitioners are in possession of net extent of land admeasuring 1431.52 Square Yards. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under the premise of laying roads in the subject locality, the officials of the respondent No.2 Corporation have visited the site made informal survey and markings, and took measurements by making distinct markings, intending to take over the property belonging to the petitionersby demolition without resorting to land acquisition proceedings as provided under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Thus, the petitioner approached this Court by way of an urgent motion being moved.

¶36

When the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondentNo.2 Corporation, denying the contentions of the petitioners that the Officials of the respondent No.2 Corporation have unauthorizedly made the markings on the building for demolition, he further submits that any proposal for laying road across the

¶37

¶38

subject property or any other action in respect of the subject property would be after following due procedure under law.

¶39

In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures either for demolition of the structures or dispossession of the petitioners from the subject propertyi.e., the house site admeasuring 516.88 Square Yards belonging to the 1^st petitioner, as well as the adjoining vacant patta land admeasuring 1,431.52 Square Yards belonging to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, without due process of law.

¶40