Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sadi Appala Raju Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATT
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBEJ^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
rPRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 30184 OF 2025
Between:
Sadi Appala Raju Reddy, S/o. Late Apparao, Aged 51 years, Occ - Advocate,
R/o.D.No.2-35, Boyapalem (Jn), Gambheeram (P), Anandapuram Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
2. The Directorate of Town and Country planning Rep. by its Principal
Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur
District.
3. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Rep. by its
Commissioner, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
4. The Chief City Planning Officer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal
Corporation, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
...Respondents^
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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the actions of the 3 rd
Respondent in not
considering the remaining land of Ac 1.10 cents in Survey No. 7- 2P situated
at Paradesipalem Revenue village, Chinnagadili mandalam, Visakhapatnam
Drstnct, without considering his ownership of the remaining extent of Ac. 1.10
cents without following statutory procedures as illegal, arbitrary, and violative
of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1955, and the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (CentraJ Act 30 of 2013) .and Articles 14, 21, and 300-
A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to
refrain from taking any coercive steps, including the acquisition of petitioners
remaining land of Ac. 1.10 cents. until the mandatory procedures and fair
compensation and rehabilitation
measures are provided as per law.
lA NO: 1 OF
Petition under Section 151 of CPC is filed
praying that in thd
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ini support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners
remaining land of Ac 1.10
cents for providing fair compensation and
consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive action, including
Eviction from petitioners land i
in Survey No. 7-2P situated at Paradesipalem
Revenue village, Chinnagadili mandalam. Visakhapatnam District, until fair
compensation and rehabilitation
measures are provided as per law. Pending
disposal of WP 30184 of 2025 on the file of the High Court.
The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the'
affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s>
^ REDDY DUNGI Advocate for the Petitioner, and of GP MUNCIPAL'
DMN AND URBAN DEV, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, and of SRI ASC^
BOSE, Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4, the Court made the
following
ORDER:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner was consulted for the acquisition of 213 square yards of land, whereas the respondent authorities have acquired 213 square yards belonging to the petitioner and now in the process of taking over the entire extent of land belonging to the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed a house and is in possession of Ac.1.10 cents of land in Sy.No.7.2P situated at Paradesipalem Revenue Village, Chinnagadili Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. Under the guise of acquiring a portion of the petitioner's land, the respondents are now in the process of taking over fhe entire land of the petitioner.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the property covered under document No.3143 of 2007 represented the extent of land acquired and that the petitioner was consulted for expecting TDR's.
Be that as it may, there shall be an interim direction to the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the extent of land held by the petitioner's family without following due process Of law.
Post the matter on 02.12.2025.
Sd/-M.PRABHAKARA RAO^ DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
2. The Directorate of Town and Country planning Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. (Addressees 1 & 2 by Special Messenger)
3. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
4. The Chief City Planning Officer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam City Visakhapatnam District. (Addressees 3 & 4 by RPAD)
5. One CC to M/s TANUJA REDDY DUNGI Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
7. One CC to SRI ASC BOSE Standing Counsel [OPUC]
8. One spare copy PSR * i HIGH COURT HN,J DATED:11/11/2025 NOTE: Post the matter on 02.12.2025.
ORDER WP.No.30184 of 2025 INTERIM DIRECTION