SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 1047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Kiranmayee Mandava, J.
C Vikram Sai, S/O. C. Sai Ramalinga Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No : 27106 of 2025
Decided On : 26-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Soora Venkata Sainath
For the Respondent: GP Muncipal Admn And Urban Dev AP

Land acquisition for public purposes must follow legal procedures including compensation and notification, reaffirming statutory rights against unlawful dispossession.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioner challenged the action of dispossession from his private patta land for public road construction without following due process of law. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 6)

(B) Public Purpose - The court noted the respondents could acquire land for public purposes only after paying compensation and following legal procedure, emphasizing the importance of lawful processes. (Paras 2, 6)

(C) Due Process - The court ruled that if land is needed for public use, prior notice must be provided to the petitioner before taking any action, ensuring that legal requirements are met. (Paragraphs 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was forcibly dispossessed from his land located in Kattamanchi Village for a public road, without due process. The respondents contended they had not encroached upon the petitioner’s property.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to comply with the due process of law before acquiring the petitioner’s land and to issue prior notice if any survey is needed.

Issues: The key issue was the legality of the dispossession of the petitioner’s land without due process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that any acquisition for public purpose must follow the legislative framework, ensuring compensation and notification procedures are adhered to.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions to the respondents.

Table of Content
1. dispossession without due process is challenged. (Para 2)
2. claim of unlawful dispossession; reliance on supreme court ruling. (Para 3 , 4)
3. clarification on survey and acquisition process. (Para 5 , 6)
4. writ petition disposed with directions to follow law. (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Municipality, Administration & Urban Development, and Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Challenging the action of the 4th respondent in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from his private patta land located in Sy. No. 285/1 of Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor Mandal, for the purpose of laying a public road, without following the due procedure of law as enunciated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the instant Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the subject land is required for a public purpose, the respondents are at liberty to take recourse to law after paying compensation and acquiring the property in accordance with the Act, however the respondents are attempting to high-handedly take possession of the petitioner’s land without any notice.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, [ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347 ]

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4th respondent, placed before the Court a copy of the instructions received by him in the case. A perusal of the same reflects that the respondent Corporation did not attempt to encroach upon any private land, nor has entered the petitioner’s property. The officials of the respondent Corporation are carrying out a survey to ascertain the condition of the road and the alignment, with the sanctioned Mater Plan.

6. It is further reflects that at any point of time, if any portion of the petitioner’s land is required for public use, the respondent Corporation would follow the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and take possession of the land only after completing the acquisition process. In the said process, if any survey is to be conducted, the same shall not be construed as dispossession by the petitioner.

7. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to follow the due procedure contemplated under law, in the event the subject property is required for any public purpose. Further, the respondents shall issue prior notice to the petitioner if any survey is proposed to be conducted in respect of the subject property.

8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top