Andhra Pradesh High court dispose of the writ petition, by directing the respondents not to interfere the land of petitioner without following due procedure of law.

sAndhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Vurum Naga Venkata Somasekhar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh


WRIT PETITION No. 22934 of 2016



1) Vurum Naga Venkata Somasekhar


 1) The State of Andhra Pradesh

2) The Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj

3) The District Collector

4) The Superintending of Engineer, Roads

5) The Executive Engineer

6) The Deputy Executive Engineer

7) The Assistant Engineer

8) The Village Secretary, Grarm Panchayati

9) The Assistant Electrical Engineer


This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus  respondents 2 to 9 in demolishing 80% of petitioner’s two storied building located in an extent of 200 Sq.yards of site of Sanivarapupeta, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District without issuing any notice which is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, violative of Articles 14, 21, & 300A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the cannons of Natural Justice and mandate of Land Acquisition Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 and thereby direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the petitioner in the interest of justice and grant such other relief as it deems fit.

The relevant provisions followed in this case are as follows: – 


Article 226 Power of High Courts to issue certain writs –

Any High Court may issue directions, orders, or writs, including those in the nature of writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, regardless of what Article 32 says. These writs may be used to enforce any of the rights granted by Part III and for other purposes.


Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.


All people residing on Indian territory have a right to equality before the law and equal protection under the law, according to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. According to this clause, no one shall be denied equality before the law or national legal protection. This implies that everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law regardless of caste, religion, gender, race, or place of birth. Article 14 forbids discrimination and encourages justice and impartiality in the administration of the law.

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

The fundamental rights to life and individual freedom are guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It declares that no one may be robbed of their life or personal liberty until doing so in accordance with the legal process. The protection provided by this article prevents the state or any other authority from arbitrarily denying people their right to live in dignity and freedom. The judiciary has construed it to cover a wide range of rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to a healthy environment, the right to life, and the right to livelihood.

A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905

Section 6. Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc

Section 7. Prior notice to person in occupation


The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property to an extent of 200square yards at Sanivarapupeta, Eluru, West Godavari District. In the aforementioned site, the petitioner built a two-story structure with six rooms on the ground floor, where he has been operating a shop-cum-Pan Broker company. He has been earning a living by operating his business without interference from anyone and has done so by paying the necessary taxes and charges to the relevant authorities.

The respondents demolished the petitioner’s RCC Building by 80% for road widening without giving any prior notice and without starting any land acquisition processes. The entire surviving component of the building was destroyed because of the aforementioned demolition of a portion of the structure. The petitioner therefore submitted the current writ petition.

The respondent Nos.4 to 7, filed a counter stating that the father of the petitioner  filed against the Mandal Revenue Officer, Eluru, and 4 others and for permanent injunction, stating that he is resident and got residential upstair building in Sanivarapupeta, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District and the father of the petitioner used to pay property tax to the Panchayat and the said property is situated adjacent to the main road of Sanivarapupeta leading to Nuzvid. The said road i.e., 5 sq. yards in Sanivarapupeta, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District is under the control of the Roads and Buildings Department and the said suit was dismissed on 08.04.2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

It is further stated that after dismissal of O.S.No.1194 of 2004 on the filed of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Eluru, the respondent Nos4 to 7 vide letter dated 20.05.2016 addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Eluru, requesting to take action as per law duly issuing notices U/s.7 and 6 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act,1905 to remove the encroachments to widen the road from Km 31.0 to 35.708 and village limits of Sanivarapupeta and Gowravaram and other encroachments if any. Accordingly, the Tahsildar tried to serve notices to the petitioner as well as other encroachments U/s. 7 and 6 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act,1905 but the petitioner refused to receive the said notices and accordingly, panchanama was conducted on 02.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 respectively.

The learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings has produced a copy of the instructions of the Executive Engineer, (R&B), Eluru, vide Letter dated 03.02.2023 wherein it is stated that on a letter addressed by the 6th respondent-Deputy Executive Engineer herein, on 20.05.2016, requesting to remove the encroachments for widening of road from Km 31.00 to 35.708 i.e., Duggirala, Sanivarapupeta & Gowravaram village limits in the interest of public, the Tahsildar tried to serve notices to the petitioner as well as other encroachers under Section 7 and 6 of AP Land Encroachment Act. But, as the petitioner has refused to receive the said notices, therefore Panchanama was conducted on 02.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 respectively.

The Revenue Authorities have taken possession of the 5 sq. yards of property and handed over to Roads and Buildings Department on 14.06.2016. On 19.06.2016, the Tahsildar, Eluru initiated proceedings under Section 144 Cr.PC. As per the Revenue records i.e., adangal the land belongs to the Government, as such the Tahsildar, Eluru issued notice under Section 7 and 6 of the Land Encroachment Act with regardto the land 5 sq. yards Sanivarapupeta and hence the respondents, after following the due process of law, have demolished the building to an extent of 5 sq. yards only.


This hon’ble court held that the petitioner has encroached to an extent of 5 sq. yards and accordingly, after issuing notice and duly conducting a panchanama, the respondent department have demolished the construction made by the petitioner. In view of the said this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, by directing the respondents not to interfere with regard to the remaining extent of land beyond 5 sq. yards, without following due procedure of law. This hon’ble court with the above direction, has disposed of this writ petition.


Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *