Unknown vs Lo on 25 May, 2026

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Unknown vs Lo on 25 May, 2026

LO]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT!
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION}

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FITH BAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

-PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 14844 OF 2026

Sohween:

AND

KS

Samireddy Narasimha Murthy, S/o. Samrireddy Narisinga Ran, 4-233
G K cozy, Chandrampaiem, Madhurawada, Near Durgadeyi Ternole,

Visakhapatnam (Rural), Pothinarnallayapaiem, Visakh apainar-S30os7

Patitioner

eeparment _Repre sented by iS "einpal secretary, Secretariat

The Metropolitan Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Represented by

2

Mefrapoliian Corrimissioner, Visakhapatnam Metropotian PSG

Ror}

eae

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Represented by ifs

a

Gommissianer, Visakhanatnam Sd0am%

rhe Ciuef City Planner, Grealer Visakhapatnam Municioal Cer

fies by wa oe tin ae x7 Ng ey



5

peo 7 Lae sh; shea tne
ie a he oS ST De
ae Sf lowes ge wer ee on cree "a tt oneee tis fn apne
er AD ge be a o £ B® & B
oG TS eA i yw f 2 2 ey SS ew ye
3) SE et % So te ok a Ye A Beaty A
pres ke " my nes, nee ie ed ty i.
wtove ofeen oh. is 8 o a on 4 mw o« an roe bt
wm wee Pa re ie} is mr in th "Eee Src ht res gy
on me tS > a aan? an ne GG ( eo Ma ee
a 4 ' Seve o
Pe fie) o 2 go fe we bee
ei tm =D ae Oa ad "& C2 wm oo be .
er pees hy ied $% creer oer , gee ay 0 hee
ram + *. fame a eh. hee.
fe o s nn on an rs se a
res) an facet ae wee teeta £% root gue aS ok aoe aa aecee
face. poowe "65 , 'we oe, ae toe . et ton
barre. ie . i Seed .
schon, 4, re) ro Pa C B] x wer had ud 7 Paden y et
3 rm / Bo gr gg & ad yo a
oe pec " gD ed Ly tae he Pe
+ aot eof 4 ' ws a3 gece ~ pest £f3
nena ! oe ae tf a, Oh oke 07 $s
oe Sen ser hee os a oe 'aad
a ot ; fh Ce x r g 4% iad "an, aes rye
bees cy fon s ben © a ot see "> pheee jooees A
ee < a 4 aha * ¥ vhpen bees
x Ox fd ne, w Lf re " reel we KS
aa rae ne weg 3 ay ae vapee ign Soe "cn "non
ben. $9] "> ai freee. a wed MA + 3 tf One, te
Sun ore So te ee gy nn py
we fs go OG ante a we noes bs ) cook
as a Ef E gg e goo. 8 BB a eZ
ws "e% aes Smee thy 4% ee Poot "op, 2 a) ue ohn <8,
wees ca cs re As a Be More So a oo "gost '
/ SS bog SS ~- bBo fF S&S 4B BE ed oe
> GS Ss ms a . < se x fe SS ok ee
sre 3 ie mt eB we BS oy whe TE
gone 9G wee i a re as e3 wm ge % tb. * sa
ber 8G be: oe a "ee wh Be =e
wt sg Sim a5) s St wht 0% os er
wt Cj ona y us fer vin CI on ae C3 how "
ae 1", % 4 Yow wwe i "ry in' 4 ven my, $
oe . &® © #8 SB BeBe sa SB. ond
~ 8 6 @ 2 we SG ce | ra fe FS
a aeee ee g "tS 7% Poly bee " --
é ws Ce a Ve caw a
fe LIF ates waane,
Son wooed
- Pe
ep aA



Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 fo 5: None anneared on behalf of
Respondent No.8, the Court rnade the following.

ORDER

{House motion per Hon’ble GTK, J .

Heard Sri Sravan Kumar. Nalidana, learned counsel for the

SPONSORED

petitioner and Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel! representing Sri
A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam: Municipal!
Corporation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and §. None
appeared on behalf of respondent No.8.

Yoday, this writ petition is ieken up in pursuance to the House
Motion permitted by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice.

The grievance of the petitioner fs that the respondents are
interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s land in
oy. No.262iq, 2, 3 situated at. Medurawada Vi igae, Visakhapatnam

Cistrict, which is in violation: of Article 300A of Constitution of india

apart fram Articles 14 and 21, particularly without following due pracess
of law. |

in cantinuation of the arguments, lgarned counsel submits that the
father of the petitioner purchased the subject property through
registered sale deed dated 14.05.1986 vide Doc.No.1309/1986 and afer
the demise of his father, the petitioner is in possession and enioyment,
through inheritance.

Earlier, the land acquisition officer acquired to an extent of Ac. 3.48
| oars out of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.2621, 2, 3 under the L.P.No.19/8s.
subsequently, the lay aut was modified and revised layout was prepared

by VUDA/VMRDA, has acquired the land. The core argument of the

Rood

earned counsel for the petitioner is that the remaining land to an extent
of Ac.U.76 cents is now in possession and enjoyment of the petitianer
and this land was never sought for acquiring by any authority and the
petiioner is in possession of the land thraugh the sale deed dated

PTO TS88,

& vo
ooh

i.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that & is rat in
dispute that land acquisition proceedings were issued for land to an
extent of Ac.03.46 cents buf the remaining Ac. Q. #8 cents which is the
remaining part is untouched. Now, at present, under the guise of 80

gled land acquisition proceedings, the 6fh respondent trying to
interfere with the peaceful poss eassion and enjoyment of the fan. To
that aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on
Os. 04.2028, representation has bean submitted by the petitioner fo the
Sth respondent, fo enquire inte the matter and canduct fresh Survey for
which the 6th respondent issued endorsement vide Comp No 21434 Say
RUSHSOT-1, dated 22.04.2028, wherein, is stated as follows:

“it this regard, the matter has been axamined with referencetathe
Award praceedings, As per records, the tofal extent of land in ay. No z6ag
ig AC48 cents, which stands recorded in the name of Peace Pothanna,
Sfo Gengarl in the revenus records. Rois further observed that Sx
Samireddy Nerasings Rao (father of the present petitioner) had purchased
the sald land, subdivided # into 40 layouts plote and soid them toa various
individuals. However, he did not afend the Award enquiry cor furnished
the details of the purchasers.

fis alse observed that out of the asic glots, the purchasers of 8
piofe attended the Award enquiry arki were nad vompensation
ascardingly, In respect of the ramainiig 32 plots, as the purchasers did
mo attend the enquiry, the Land Acquisition Offner deposited a sum of
Rs.2, 07 89S. 4N- under Revenue Deposits far disbursement to the eligible
Claimants. Upon submissian of claims ane obtaining arders of competent
civil caurl with respect of the ite of the balance 23 plots as discussed
above.

Further, Nf is to inform that the petiiianer has fled Writ Petitian
No. 16548 of 3023 before fhe Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and
the matier ig presently sub fudice. A counter afiidavit Ras already been
fied hy VAIROA. In view of the above facts and circ: tangiances, the request
of the petiioear for conducting fresh an Wquirywaurvey ard for deletion of

the land from the approved inyout cannat be considered,”

On perusal of the affidavit, f goes to show that when the mMeadings
in Para No.4 are juxtaposed, and with the unisoned above referred paras
from the endorsement dated 22.04 2026 would clearly throw light that the
extent where the land acquisition proceedings were conductediinitiated
and completed, was only with regard to the land In Sy.No.262/1 an extent
of Ac.3.46 cents and the letter was addressed which means the
contention at Pare No.4 of the affidavit with regard fo land in an extent of
Ac.0.76 cents remains intact with the petitioner, or corollary.

Se that as fis, the main grievance of the petitioner is that without
issuing any notice or providing opportunity of being heard, on
18.05.2026, 21.08.2028 and 22.05.2026, all of a sudden, the 6″

respondent along with the staff and police personnel came to the
peliioner’s property and continuously harrassed and warned that the
possession will be taken over. | 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only plece of
land available to the petitioner is the property in possession and Wf ary
nlerference by the respondents, it would materially affect the very right
of the petitioner over the property, which is in violation of Articles 74, 24
and 3004 of Constitution of India, He Airther emphasized that recently
Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorized the right of property as
constitutional right and aise human right.

On the other hand, Sri Vuaya Kumar, learned counsel! reprasenting
sri A.3.0.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Municipal
Corporation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.d, 4 and 8, would
categorically submit that there is no interference from their side,

: This Court is convinced that there is no legal conundrum in
recognizing the right to property as a human right in addition to a
constitutional right.

in this connection, ff is apposite to mention the Judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in Kolkaia Municipal Corporation and another ys.

Bimal Kumar Shah and others , wherein, at paragranh 36, & was
observed as follows:

#30, What then are these sub-righis oristrands af this awadeshi conatitutional fabric
constituting the right fo property? Seven such sub righis can be identified, albeit norms
exhaustive. These ara: . .

i. duty of the State to inform the person that Ht infends to acquire his property
~ the right to notice,
ih the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition ~ the right fo be
Reartd,
HL the duty of the State to inform the persan of Rs decigian t& acquire ~ the
right fo a reasoned decision, .

iv, the duty of the Siste to demanstrate that the acquiation is for public
purpose ~ the duly to acquire only for public PUTNOSsE,
yw the duty of the Sinte to restitute and rehabifiiate–the right of restitution or

fair compensation,

Wi the duly of the State to canduct the process of a BOS aficiently and
within prescribed thnaines of the proceedings ~ the right to an efficient and

expeditious preceas, and
¥HL WH. final conclusian of the procesdin gS leading to vesting ~ the right of

oonelusion,”

in view of the above guided legion of laws Isid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court directs the 6° respondent as an
inferim measure not to interfere with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property perta aining to the petitioner siuated at
Madurawada Village, Vi sakhapainam Olstrict in Sy. No.g6en, 3, 3, ta
an extent of Ac.0.78 cents, Hl the next date of Rearing.

List fhe matter afier Sun wher Vacation, 2038,

ary UL SRIDEVE
DEPUTY REGIS

fend} LSC S33

Te,

fd

$00

ot

fsakhapainam Urban Develapment Authority, Visakhapatnam, the
Visakhapainam Urban Davelopment Authority, Visakhapatnams30003
(by Speed Post)

One CC to SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Advonate ROPUCI

One CC to Sri AS.C. Sose. Standing Counsel [OPUC]
One CC to Sri Sorisetty Ganesh Babu, Sanding Counsel (OP UC}
Two COs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV High Court Of .

One spare copy

NiGH COURT

GTK.J

DATED : 25/08/2028

LIST THE MATTER AFTER SUMMER VACATION, 2036

WP No.14844 of 3098