(Relied on: Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347)1
APHC010527372025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3458]
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 27106/2025
Between:
1. C VIKRAM SAI, S/O. C. SAI RAMALINGA REDDY, AGED 53 YEARS,
BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 1, MAHALAKSHMI NIVAS, SAI NAGAR,
THUMMALAGUNTA BY-PASS ROAD TIRUPATHI - 517502.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIONAND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT A. P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
4. THE CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, CHITTOOR
5. THE CHITTOOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHUDA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, CHITTOOR
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 toPleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one
like a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in the
acts of the forcible dispossession of the petitioner's possession in the private
2025:APHC:43390
2
patta land located in Sy. 285/1 of Kattamanchi Village of Chittoor Mandal, for
the purpose of laying a public road, without following the procedure of law as
enunciated under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary,
unsustainable, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice and
also in violation of the petitioner'sfundamental rights as guaranteed under
Article 14, 21, and 300-A of Indian Constitution and consequently restrain the
4th Respondent from laying a public road in the petitioners private property
and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to stay all proceedings of the 4th Respondent or anybody acting in
his name from interfering with the private property belonging to the
petitioner’s family in Sy. 285/1 in Kattamanchi Village of Chittoor Mandal in
any manner, pending the disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SOORA VENKATA SAINATH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner; the
learned Government Pleader for Municipality, Administration & Urban
Development, and Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. Challenging the action of the 4th respondent in forcibly
dispossessing the petitioner from his private patta land located in Sy. No.
285/1 of Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor Mandal, for the purpose of laying a
public road, without following the due procedure of law as enunciated under
2025:APHC:43390
3
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act’), the instant Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the subject
land is required for a public purpose, the respondents are at liberty to take
recourse to law after paying compensation and acquiring the property in
accordance with the Act, however the respondents are attempting to highhandedly take possession of the petitioner’s land without any notice.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another Vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh & Others1
.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri
Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4
th
respondent, placed before the Court a copy of the instructions received by him
in the case. A perusal of the same reflects that the respondent Corporation did
not attempt to encroach upon any private land, nor has entered the petitioner’s
property. The officials of the respondent Corporation are carrying out a survey
to ascertain the condition of the road and the alignment, with the sanctioned
Mater Plan.
6. It is further reflects that at any point of time, if any portion of the
petitioner’s land is required for public use, the respondent Corporation would
1
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347
2025:APHC:43390
4
follow the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of ‘Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 and take possession of the land only after
completing the acquisition process. In the said process, if any survey is to be
conducted, the same shall not be construed as dispossession by the
petitioner.
7. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents
to follow the due procedure contemplated under law, in the event the subject
property is required for any public purpose. Further, the respondents shall
issue prior notice to the petitioner if any survey is proposed to be conducted in
respect of the subject property.
8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date:26.09.2025
MVK
2025:APHC:43390
5
596
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 27106/2025
Date:26.09.2025
MVK
2025:APHC:43390
