APHC010061422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3381 of 2025 Between:

Chitirala Madhuri ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

2. A.S.C. BOSE, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following:

ORDER :

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over her property i.e. 17 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no.2 (GF-2), Door No.5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City, and initiating steps to demolish the said property of the petitioner without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and its staff not to interfere with the possession and ownership of Petitioner over her property i.e. 17 sq. yards of land along with a RCC shop no.2 (GF-2), Door No.5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City without following the due process of law.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development representing respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(i) The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property admeasuring 17 sq. yards of land along with an RCC shop No.2 (GF-2) at Door No.5-55-80, Rohini Arcade Apartment, 4/19 Brodipet, Guntur City. The subject property was originally purchased by petitioner’s mother, namely Chitirala Nagalakshmi, vide registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2150/2005 dated 17.02.2005, and she had been in possession of the same by paying taxes, until her death on 11.08.2023. After demise of the petitioner’s mother, the property devolved upon the petitioner by virtue of a relinquishment deed dated 18.10.2023 executed by the brother and sister of the petitioner, relinquishing their share of right in the said property in her favour and thereby, the petitioner has become the absolute owner of the subject property and the rental income received on the said property is the only source of her livelihood.

(ii) It is further stated that during the lifetime of petitioner’s mother, when the 2^nd respondent-Corporation issued a notice dated 22.03.2010 under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, terming the subject property as an unauthorized construction and directing the petitioner’s mother to remove the same, she had filed W.P.No.13448 of 2010 before this Court. This Court, having observed that no material was placed on record to show that any show-cause notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued before issuing the impugned notice, disposed of the said writ petition, by order dated 16.06.2010, permitting the petitioner’s mother to submit her explanation/objections to the Corporation, by treating the impugned notice as a show-cause notice under Section 452 of the HMC Act, within four weeks from the date of the order, and upon submission of such explanation, the 2^nd respondent - Corporation was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(iii) It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner’s mother had submitted an explanation to the 2^nd respondent- Corporation on 14.07.2010, but no order has been passed by the 2^nd respondent thereafter and there was no interference with regard to the subject property by the 2^nd respondent.

(iv) It is contended that, having remained silent for all these

1