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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16876

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HARINATH.N
Ponnuru Dhanalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 36452/2025



##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:61553

APHC010711452025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION NO: 36452/2025

Between:

1. P ONNURU DHANALAKSHMI,, W/O HAZARATHAIAH (LATE) AGED

ABOUT 59 YEARS, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF SRI SAILAJA

PLYWOOD CENTER, SHOP. NO. 12, A.C. BOMMA MUNICIPAL

SHOPPING COMPLEX, SUBEDHARPET, NELLORE. R/ O 10/468,

SUNDARAGIRIVARI STREET, SANTHAPET, NELLORE.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPALITIES AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI

522238, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OFFICE, DARGAMITTA,

NELLORE 524003.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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

pleased topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in

the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the declaring the action of 2nd

respondent in taking steps and making attempts to dispossess the petitioner

from rented shop i.e Shop No. 12, A.C. Bomma Municipal Shopping

Complex, Subedharpet, Chinna Bazar, Nellore, pursuant to notice vide ROC

No. 033/2025/Al dated -09-2025 issued on 17-10-2025 by the 2nd

##PAGE2##

2

2025:APHC:61553

respondent concluding that the 25 years of lease period for the same was

concluded, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, without providing

necessary documents about conclusion of lease as the same are illegal,

arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the notice issued by

the 2nd respondent vide ROC No. 033/2025/A1 dated -09-2025 issued on 17-

10-2025, while directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the

possession of Petitioner over the said property and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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

pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice of the 2nd

respondent vide ROC No. 033/2025/A1 dated -09-2025 issued on 17-10-

2025, including dispossession, eviction of the petitioner from rented shop i.e

Shop No.12, A.C. Bomma Municipal Shopping Complex, Subedharpet,

Chinna Bazar, Nellore, by the 2nd respondent and their staff and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

2025:APHC:61553

ORDER:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing

notice calling upon the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of shop

for facilitating the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh auction and for allotment

of shops. The petitioner was also called upon to pay the entire outstanding

arrears of rent, if any, and to pay the electricity bills, and to hand over the keys

of the shops, along with proof of payment of the electricity bills, within 30 days

from the date of the impugned notice.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name

was mutated in the records of the 2nd respondent as a lessee and that the 25

years period of lease, which is generally granted insofar as Municipal Shop

Complex is yet to expire. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot

call upon the petitioner to vacate the shop and handover the vacant physical

possession before the expiry of 25 years lease period.

3. Sri A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent submits that the 25 years lease period has been completed long

back. It is submitted that the petitioner mutated her name, and the mutation of

the name of the petitioner by the respondent authority cannot be considered

as a fresh lease, which would have to be considered for the fresh term of 25

years from the date of mutation. It is further submitted

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