Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Andhra Pradesh vs Bimal Kumar Shah And on 25 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE: W.P.No. 14844 of 2026
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
No.
DATE ORDER NOTE
01. 25.05.2026 GTK, J
(House motion per Hon'ble GTK, J)
Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for
the 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 5. None appeared on behalf of
respondent No.6.
Today, this writ petition is taken up in pursuance to the
House Motion permitted by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents
are interfering with the peaceful possession of the
petitioner’s land in Sy.No.262/1, 2, 3 situated at Madurawada
Village, Visakhapatnam District, which is in violation of
Article 300A of Constitution of India apart from Articles 14
and 21, particularly without following due process of law.
In continuation of the arguments, learned counsel
submits that the father of the petitioner purchased the
subject property through registered sale deed dated
11.05.1966 vide Doc.No.1309/1966 and after the demise of
his father, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment,
through inheritance.
Earlier, the land acquisition officer acquired to an
extent of Ac.3.46 cents out of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.262/1,
2, 3 under the L.P.No.19/89. Subsequently, the lay out was Contd…
2
modified and revised layout was prepared by
VUDA/VMRDA, has acquired the land. The core argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the remaining
land to an extent of Ac.0.76 cents is now in possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner and this land was never sought
for acquiring by any authority and the petitioner is in
possession of the land through the sale deed dated
11.05.1966.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it
is not in dispute that land acquisition proceedings were
issued for land to an extent of Ac.03.46 cents but the
remaining Ac.0.76 cents which is the remaining part is
untouched. Now, at present, under the guise of so called
land acquisition proceedings, the 6th respondent trying to
interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
land. To that aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that on 08.04.2026, representation has been
submitted by the petitioner to the 6th respondent, to enquire
into the matter and conduct fresh survey for which the 6th
respondent issued endorsement vide Comp.No.2143158/
2023/SDT-1, dated 22.04.2026, wherein, it is stated as
follows:
“…In this regard, the matter has been examined with
referencetothe Award proceedings. As per records, the total
extent of land in Sy.No.262/1 is Ac.3.46 cents, which stands
recorded in the name of Peesa Pothanna, S/o Bangari in the
revenue records. It is further observed that Sri Samireddy
Narasinga Rao (father of the present petitioner) had purchased
the said land, subdivided it into 40 layouts plots and sold them
to various individuals. However, he did not attend the Award
enquiry nor furnished the details of the purchasers.
It is also observed that out of the said plots, the purchasers
of 8 plots attended the Award enquiry and were paid Contd…
compensation accordingly. In respect of the remaining 32 plots,
3as the purchasers did nto attend the enquiry, the Land
Acquisition Officer deposited a sum of Rs.2,07,699.40/- under
Revenue Deposits for disbursement to the eligible claimants.
Upon submission of claims and obtaining orders of competent
civil court with respect of the title of the balance 32 plots as
discussed above.
Further, it is to inform that the petitioner has filed Writ
Petition No.16546 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, and the matter is presently sub judice. A
counter affidavit has already been filed by VMRDA. In view of
the above facts and circumstances, the request of the
petitioenr for conducting fresh enquiry/survey and for deletion
of the land from the approved layout cannot be considered..”
On perusal of the affidavit, it goes to show that when
the pleadings 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 conducted/initiated
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 Para No.4 of the
affidavit with regard to land in an extent of Ac.0.76 cents
remains intact with the petitioner, or corollary.
Be that as it is, the main grievance of the petitioner is
that without issuing any notice or providing opportunity of
being heard, on 15.05.2026, 21.05.2026 and 22.05.2026, all
of a sudden, the 6th respondent along with the staff and
police personnel came to the petitioner’s property and
continuously harrassed and warned that the possession will
be taken over.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
only piece of land available to the petitioner is the property in
possession and if any interference by the respondents, it
Contd…
would materially affect the very right of the petitioner over the
4
property, which is in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of
Constitution of India. He further emphasized that recently
Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorized the right of property
as constitutional right and also human right.
On the other hand, 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 5, 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, it is apposite to mention the
Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and
others1, wherein, at paragraph 30, it was observed as
follows:
“30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi
constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? Seven such sub-
rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are:
i. duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to
acquire his property – the right to notice,
ii. the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition –
the right to be heard,
iii. the duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to
acquire – the right to a reasoned decision,
iv. the duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for
public purpose – the duty to acquire only for public purpose,
v. the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate-the right of
restitution or fair compensation,
vi. the duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition
efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings –
the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and
vii. final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting – the
right of conclusion.”
Contd…
1
(2024) 10 SCC 533
5
In view of the above guided legion of laws laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court directs the 6th
respondent as an interim measure not to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property
pertaining to the petitioner situated at Madurawada Village,
Visakhapatnam District in Sy.No.262/1, 2, 3, to an extent of
Ac.0.76 cents, till the next date of hearing.
List the matter after Summer Vacation, 2026.
______
GTK, J
MKK
