APHC010171422023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8757/2023 Between:

Aditya Educational Institutions ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations

2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

3. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:

ORDER

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3, Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation in not taking any action pursuant to the representation dated 02.03.2023 made by the Petitioner for evicting the unauthorized and illegal encroachers from the 40 feet wide road which is the only access to the Petitioners land for transporting construction material at Petitioners land at LP No.153/1991 in T.S.No.128 admeasuring 1101.66 sq yards situated at Sambamurthy Nagar, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being in utter violation of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated

02.03.2023 and pass…”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an educational institution aiding from schooling to degree and is also running an Engineering College. Thereafter, the petitioner has acquired an extent of 1101.66 Sq.yards situated at Sambamurthy Nagar, Suryaraopet, Kakinada vide document No.2592 of 2023 dated 01.03.2023 in an auction conducted by the Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner institution has started constructing hostel. But, as the said property was purchased in an auction, the physical boundaries were not marked and also there is a 40 feet road in the southern side of the plot, which is the only access for the main lane. As the said road was encroached by some unauthorized persons, the petitioner’s institution submitted a representation dated 02.03.2023, to the respondent No.3 requesting to evict the encroachers. But no action was taken by the respondent No.3.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in a similar situation, when the adjacent property in L.P.No.362/82 has been encroached by the same unauthorized persons, the owner of the said property filed W.P.46310 of 2016, wherein this Court vide its order dated 29.12.2016 disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondents therein to take necessary action. But as no action has been taken by the concerned respondents therein, another writ petition vide W.P.No.27189 of 2022 was filed and this Court vide its order dated 16.09.2022, ordered for the appearance of the respondent No.3- Commissioner herein along with the records and subsequently, the alleged encroachments in the property in L.P.No.362/82, were removed by the respondent-Commissioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the issue of the petitioner institution falls within the same ambit, the respondent No.3 is not taking any action on the representation dated 02.03.2023, submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard Sri M.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.2, Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and perused the material available on record.

5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, l