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
| 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.
Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.