The Court made the following ORDER:

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

Heard Sri Vigneswara Reddy, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P.Vengala Reddy, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations.

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in trying to demolish the shops bearing D. No.41/1587 and D.No.41/1588 in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.64/1 of Sankarapuram Revenue Ward No.41, Chinnachowk, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District without initiating the proceedings for acquisition of the same as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the provisions Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the well established principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 not to lay/widen the road by demolishing the shops bearing D.No.41/1587 and D.No.41/1588 in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.64/1 of Sankarapuram Revenue Ward No.41, Chinnachwok, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District without initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also without payment of compensation to which I am entitled to and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. When this Writ Petition was listed for admission on 06.02.2026, this Court, having prima facie noted that Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 may not come to the aid of the Corporation to remove or demolish any structure without issuing any notice and without following the Principles of Natural Justice, had granted an Interim Order of Status quo in favour of the Writ Petitioner and posted the matter for consideration.

4. Sri P. Vengala Reddy, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations has submitted the Written Instructions.

FACTS

5. The facts in this case would fall in a narrow compass inasmuch as the facts, briefly stated, by the Writ Petitioner are as under:

(i) That the land in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents, along with certain other extents, was purchased by the father of the Writ Petitioner herein under Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.702 of 1967 registered on 13.03.1967 (Ex.P.1); that the father of the Writ Petitioner had constructed shops, for which, the Respondent Corporation has assigned two door numbers bearing D.No.41/1587 and D.No.41/1588; that the Writ Petitioner had obtained electricity connection and had been paying property tax and electricity bills (Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3); and that the area in which shops were situated had eventually become busy and the Official Respondents have decided to widen the road.

(ii) It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Respondents have intended to demolish the subject shops without initiation of any lawful proceedings for acquisition while the Petitioner is entitled for compensation in the event that the said requirements to acquire property is for public purpose.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE CORPORATION

6. Sri P. Vengal Reddy, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations has placed reliance on Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1955). He would submit that the Corporation is not statutorily obligated to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice when it invokes its power under Section 405 of the Act, 1955 for the purpose of clearing of encroachments which are blocking the roads or when it comes to the demolition of private pr