Kandarpa Venkata Ramanamma, W/o. Late Ramakrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

THE VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VUDA, REPRESENTED BY VICE CHAIRMAN, III FLOOR, UDYOG BHAVAN, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶18

THE VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶19

THE VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶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

¶22

2

¶23

HN, J

¶24

W.P.Nos.27577 and 20080_2014

¶25

pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in trying to demolish petitioner's property situated in T.S. No. 595/6, Block No. 23 of Maharajupeta, South Ward, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District without notice and without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice.

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 34537 OF 2014

¶27

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 to grant interim orders directing the respondents not to demolish petitioner's property situated in T.S. No. 595/6, Block No. 23 of Maharajupeta, South Ward, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Dist., pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 110737 OF 2015

¶29

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

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.T V SRI DEVI

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.B D MAHESWARA REDDY

¶34

2.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

¶35

3.VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶36

3

¶37

HN, J W.P.Nos.27577 and 20080_2014

¶38

[3457]

¶39

Date of reserved for orders :

¶40

Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading :

¶41

APHC010182882014

¶42

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

¶43

MONDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO: 20080/2014

¶47

Between:

¶48

KANDARPA VENKATA RAMANAMMA,, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D.NO. 26-1-66, DASANNAPETA, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶49

...PETITIONER

¶50

AND

¶51

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MA & UD DEPARTMENT CUM CHAIRMAN, VUDA, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶52

THE VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (VUDA), REPRESENTED BY VICE CHAIRMAN, 3RD FLOOR, UDYOG BHAVAN, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶53

THE VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY, THE COMMISSIONER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶54

THE VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY, TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶55

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶56

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

¶57

4

¶58

HN, J

¶59

W.P.Nos.27577 and 20080_2014

¶60

pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in threatening the petitioner to demolish the shades and shops situated in T.S.No. 595/6, Block No.23 of Maharajupeta, South Ward, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District by not glowing the petitioner to reconstruct shades with the support of pillars is being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violative of G.O.Ms No. 168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dt 07-04-2012

¶61

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 25177 OF 2014

¶62

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 to grant interim orders directing the respondents not to interfere with the reconstruction of shades with pillars in petitioner's shops situated in T.S.No. 595/6, Block No.23 of Maharaj peta, South Ward, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶63

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 110772 OF 2015

¶64

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

¶65

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶66

1.T V SRI DEVI

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶68

1.K SRI DEVI

¶69

2.GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)

¶70

3.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

¶71

4.VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶72

5

¶73

HN, J W.P.Nos.27577 and 20080_2014

¶74

ORDER:

¶75

The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions challenging the action of respondents in trying to demolish the petitioner’s property situated in T.S.No.595/6, Block No.23 of Maharajupeta, Vizianagaram District.

¶76

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said property, having inherited the same from her mother-in-law. It is stated that the petitioner has constructed a dwelling unit on the property and has been residing therein. The petitioner intended to construct a shopping complex consisting of eight rooms and, accordingly, sought approval from respondent Nos.3 and 4. Though the requisite permission was not granted, it is the case of the petitioner that she was advised by the authorities to proceed with the construction and thereafter seek regularization by paying the prescribed penalty.

¶77

Aggrieved by the interference of the respondents with the said construction, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions in the year 2014.

¶78

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was found to have undertaken construction by encroaching upon the road margin and that the respondents initiated action against such unauthorized construction in accordance with law. It is further stated that the petitioner had unauthorizedly erected RCC pillars abutting the storm water drain and had also put up centering for the proposed construction.

¶79

6

¶80

HN, J

¶81

W.P.Nos.27577 and 20080_2014

¶82

According to the respondents, the unauthorized pillars were removed after issuance of the requisite notices.

¶83

These writ petitions having been pending since the year 2014 and no interim order was granted during the pendency of the writ petitions. In view of the efflux of time, it is left open for the respondents to take appropriate action, if any, strictly in accordance with law. If any action has already been initiated

¶84

prior to the passing of this order by following due process of law.

¶85