APHC010040062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [0]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO: 2012/2025 Between:

Kalaga Mutyalamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 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 is issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to demolish petitioner's residential house bearing Door No.2-88 situated in an extent of 0.01 cents in Survey No.222/4 situated in Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish petitioner's residential house and also not to evict her and her family members from her said residential house and pass…”

2. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the residential house bearing door No.2-88 situated in an extent of 0.01 cents in Sy.No.222/4 in Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Rural Manda, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits, Srikakulam District. The petitioner’s husband has purchased the vacant site from his vendor by name Alliboina Chinavadu vide registered sale deed dated 10.05.1976 and since then, the petitioner has been in possession of the said property even after the demise of her husband in the year 1995.

3. While the matter stood thus, all of a sudden, the respondent Nos.4 to 6, on the instructions of respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to petitioner’s scheduled property along with a JCB on 24.01.2025 and started demolishing the residential houses of the Peddapadu village, without even issuing any notice or calling for objections. However, the petitioner has resisted the said demolition and has approached this Court by filing the present petition in a lunch motion.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration.

5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration representing respondent Nos.3 to 5, on oral instructions has informed this Court that they are no way concerned with the demolition of the subject property of the petitioner, but, however has stated that the R&B department has initiated steps for widening the road in Peddapadu Village. He has further submitted that they would follow the due process of law, if at all they intend to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, representing the 2^nd respondent, on oral instructions submits that they have not instructed the respondent Nos.4 to 6 or any authority to demolish the residential houses of the villagers in Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits, Srikakulam District.

7. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing all the respondents herein not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over her property bearing door No.2-88 situated in an extent of 0.01 cents in Sy.No.222/4 in Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Rural Manda, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law.

8. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petit