Oral Common Order:

1. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025; Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned Counsel representing Smt. T. Radha Rani, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.16408 of 2025; and Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel For Municipalities.

2. The Writ Petition No.6879 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon;ble Court may be pleaded to pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring action of the respondents 2 and 3 in taking steps to demolish petitioners hut and pan shop and further insisting the petitioners to vacate from the land admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents covered by Survey No.42 and 16-28 situated in Krishnapuram Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, without issuing any notice and without following any known procedure established by law, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 965 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish petitioners hut and pan shop and also not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the said land and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The Writ Petition No. 16408 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief: “Hence the Petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus to the in action of Respondent no.2 to 4 not removing the unauthorized construction and encroachments of Respondent no.5 to 8 in between public street and front of the house of Petitioner at door no.5-1-84/1, Krishnapuram, War No.5, Amadaiavalasa despite Orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 01-04-2021 in W.P.No.7285 of 2021, Orders dated 09-03- 2022 in W.P.No.12043 of 2021, orders dated 08-11-2024 in W.P.No.26550 of 2022 and issued endorsement dated 08- 05-2025, as illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of their powers and in violation of Provisions Under Sec. 192,193,360, of A.P. Municipalities Act and consequently, direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to remove the unauthorized construction and encroachments of Respondent no.5 to 8 in between public street and front of the house of Petitioner at door no.5-1-84/1, Krishnapuram, War No.5, Amadaiavalasa forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.6879 of 2025 is referred to as the 1st Writ Petition and W.P.No.16408 of 2025 is referred to as the 2nd Writ Petition. Since the facts in both the cases are identical, with the consent of the parties, both the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing together.

5. The facts in these cases would indicate that the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition purchased an extent of 289 Sq. Yards in Door No. 5-1-84/1, Krishnapuram, S.No.16/22, Amadavalasa, Srikakulam District by way of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.759/2019 dated 26.04.2019; that after obtaining prior approval dated 20.02.2020 from the 2nd Respondent Municipality, the Petitioner had built a two storied house; that when the husband of the Unofficial Respondent No.5 tried to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed a Civil Suit bearing O.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadavalasa, seeking Permanent Injunction against the husband of Respondent No.5, namely Sri Pydi Syamala Rao. An Ad-Interim Ex-parte Injunction was granted against the Defendant therein (Sri Pydi Syamala Rao) on 19.03.2020, and the suit is pending for adjudication.

6. It is further submitted by Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in 2nd Writ Petition that the husband of Respondent No.5 encroached on the road margin land and made thatched hut without obtaining prior permission from the Municipal Authorities, which causes day-to-day nuisance to the inmates of the house belonging to the Petitioner herein in the 2nd Writ Petition; that the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition made a Representation on 01.03.2021 seeking removal of the unauthorized structure and encroachment made by Sri Pydi Syamala Rao; that Sri Pydi Syamala Rao filed W.P. No. 3338 of 2021 without impleading the Petitioner herein, seeking a direction to the Respondent Authorities to grant Electricity Service Connection; that vide Order dated 22.02.2021, W.P.No.3338 of 2021 was disposed of directing the Electricity Authorities to consider the Application of Sri Pydi Syamala Rao.

7. The Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition filed W.P.No.7285 of 2021 seeking a direction to the Municipal Authorities of the Amadavalasa Municipality to take appropriate action on the complaints of the Petitioner dated 26.10.2020 and 01.03.2021; that the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of W.P.No.7285 of 2021 vide Order dated 01.04.2021 directing the Municipal Authorities to consider the Representations/Complaints lodged by the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition; that the Commissioner of the Amadavalasa Municipality issued Notices under Sections 192, 193 and 360 of the A.P. Municipality Act to Sri Pydi Syamala Rao on 20.05.2021; that questioning the said Notices issued by the Commissioner dated 20.05.2021, Sri Pydi Syamala Rao filed W.P.No.12043 of 2021 by filing a fabricated Possession Certificate which is alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildar; that the Tahsildar had confirmed that the Possession Certificate relied on by Sri Pydi Syamala Rao is fabricated and filed a Counter-Affidavit to that effect with a request to vacate the Interim Order. Vide Final Order dated 09.03.2022, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of W.P.No.12043 of 2021 directing the Respondents to treat the Final Notice dated 30.05.2021 as a Show-cause Notice and the Representation of Sri Pydi Syamala Rao dated 24.05.2021 as an Explanation to it and pass appropriate Orders as per the rules within a period of four weeks.

8. It is further submitted that in compliance of the Order of this Court dated 09.03.2022 in W.P.No.12043 of 2021, the Commissioner conducted a full- fledged enquiry and issued an Eviction Notice dated 30.06.2022 to Sri Pydi Syamala Rao. It is submitted that the said Eviction Notice has not been challenged and therefore it has become final against Sri Pydi Syamala Rao.

9. It is further submitted that Sri Pydi Syamala Rao again filed W.P.No.26550 of 2022 against the Revenue Department seeking protection from Revenue Authorities alleging that there is a threat of dispossession by relying on the fabricated Possession Certificate. It is submitted that Neither the Municipality nor the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition were made parties in W.P.No.26550 of 2022; that Vide Order dated 22.08.2022, this Court granted Interim Protection not to dispossess Sri Pydi Syamala Rao.

10. It is further submitted that the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition got herself impleaded by filing I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.26550 of 2022 and submitted all the facts before this Court.

11. It is submitted that Since the 2nd Respondent Municipality did not implement the Orders of this Court except issuing the Eviction Notice dated 30.06.2022, the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition filed C.C.No.823 of 2023; that this C.C.No.823 of 2023 is closed on 07.03.2025; that during the pendency of W.P.No.26550 of 2022, Sri Pydi Syamala Rao expired on 31.05.2023 and his wife Smt. Pydi Prabhavathi came on record (vide Order dated 31.05.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2024).

12. It is submitted that on 08.11.2024, this Court disposed of W.P.No.26550 of 2022 directing the Official Respondents to follow due process of law; that in compliance with the Order passed by this Court dated 08.11.2024 in W.P.No.26550 of 2022, the Respondent Authorities initiated action on 17.12.2024 to remove the encroachments by following the due process of law but the actual action of removing thatched hut had not been undertaken by the Official Respondents.

13. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioners in the 1st Writ Petition filed W.P.No.6879 of 2025 seeking a direction not to interfere with the running of the Pan Shop and not to demolish the same, by relying on the Possession Certificate regarding which the Tahsildar had already clarified that the same is a fabricated one.

14. In response to the Representation submitted by the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition on 08.05.2025, the Respondent Corporation issued an Endorsement dated 08.05.2025 stating that the encroachments have not been removed due to the pendency of W.P.No.6879 of 2025 (Ex.P.16 in W.P.No.16408 of 2025). Challenging the said Endorsement, the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition filed W.P.No.16408 of 2025 assailing Endorsement of Respondent No.2 dated 08.05.2025 (Ex.P.16)

15. Sri Ambati Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in the 1st Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.6879 of 2025, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Possession Certificate dated 10.01.2019 (Ex.P.1), Electricity Bills (Ex.P.2), Property Tax Receipts (Ex.P.3), and Photographs (Ex.P.6) to indicate that the Petitioners in the 1st Writ Petition are in possession of the property. The Photograph at Ex.P.6 would also disclose that the Writ Petitioners in the 1st Writ Petition are running a Pan Shop.

16. Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition would submit that the Proceedings issued by the Tahsildar dated 26.06.2021 addressed to the Commissioner of Amadavalasa, Municipality, clearly indicates that there is no evidence in the Office indicating that the subject Site was either granted or assigned in favour of Sri Pydi Syamala Rao.                   It is also stated that the said Possession Certificate dated 10.01.2019 is not genuine (Ex.P.7). It is also stated that the Proceedings have been forwarded to the Mandal Surveyor, Amadavalasa for initiating necessary action (Ex.P.7).

17. Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition would submit that this Proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 26.06.2021 bearing Roc.No.337/2021 has attained finality since the Writ Petitioner No.1 in the 1st Writ Petition or her husband has not challenged this Proceedings.

18. It is submitted by Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition that this Proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 26.06.2021 (Ex.P.7 in W.P.No.16408 of 2025) was filed along with the Counter-Affidavit by the Municipal Authorities in W.P.No.12403 of 2021 but the Writ Petitioners in the 1st Writ Petition have not challenged the same despite having full knowledge about the findings rendered by the Tahsildar that the Possession Certificate dated 10.01.2019 is a fabricated one.

19. Having taken note of the fact that the findings of the Tahsildar dated 26.06.2021, had not been challenged, this Court has no other option to hold that the Possession Certificate relied by Sri Pydi Syamala Rao and his wife is not genuine and there is no record available in the Tahsildar’s office to this effect. The conduct of Sri Pydi Syamala Rao of not challenging the said Proceedings would compel this Court to draw an adverse inference that the Possession Certificate relied on by him or his wife (and other Writ Petitioners) in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 is not genuine.

20. Having taken note of these facts and also having taken note of the fact that Sri Pydi Syamala Rao and his family members, who are chronic litigants have been approaching this Court and securing Interim Orders without impleading the necessary parties in at least about two Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.12043 of 2021 and 26550 of 2022), this Court is of the opinion that W.P.No.6879 of 2025 is devoid of any merit.

21. It is stated that in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 the Writ Petitioners have impleaded the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petitioner as a Respondent but had not impleaded Revenue Authorities despite the facts that the Tahsildar has already stated very clearly that the Possession Certificate relied on by Sri Pydi Syamala Rao and other family members, including his wife is not genuine and there is no existing record in the Office.

22. Having regard to these facts, this Court holds that the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 are encroachers of Government land and neither the Writ Petitioners nor Sri Pydi Syamala Rao have any right or ownership over the said land.

23. The Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 placed reliance on the Electricity Bills and Tax Receipts to assert their right. On facts, there is no dispute that the husband of the Writ Petitioner No.1 in the 1st Writ Petition has been squatting on the public property. Law is well-settled that production of Receipts relating to Electricity, Property Tax Receipts or rentals paid as licensees would not confer any Title on such persons. This view of the Court is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Moosa Haji's Widow v. Executive Officer, Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Temple : (1996) 9 SCC 49. In Para No.3 of the said Judgment it is held as under:

                  “ 3. It is then contended that the trial court and the appellate court after due consideration of evidence found that the house was existing in the land. The boundary prevails over the extent and that, therefore, the appellants cannot be ejected from the land on which the house was erected. We find no force in the contention. When we pointedly asked the counsel to point out the source for the right, the appellant fell upon Ex. B-8, rent receipt, as source of title. The appellant does not get any legal title based on it since Ex. B-8 is only a rent receipt which does not confer any title. There is no other document evidencing the title of the land on which the building came to be constructed in excess of 3 1/2 cents and the purchase certificate which covers 10 3/10 cents. The appellants cannot have any right more than what was conferred under Ex. A-1 which specifically mentions 3 1/2 cents and the purchase certificate which covers 10 3/10 cents including 3 1/2 cents. Under those circumstances, the decree of the High Court does not warrant interference, except for the exclusion of total area of 10 3/10 cents of land covered by the purchase certificate from the decree.

                  (Emphasis Supplied)

24. The same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para No.26 in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple : (2003) 8 SCC 752, as under:

                  “26. .. If the property belonged to the temple, there is no reason why the temple would not have taken steps for having its own name mutated into the municipal records and commencing payment of taxes or claimed exemption from payment of taxes if the charity was entitled under the law to exemption from payment of taxes. The temple has not been able to produce any evidence, oral or documentary, to prove its title to the property. Only because the tenant attorned to the temple and started paying rent to the temple in 1969 or that the temple paid the property tax to the Municipal Committee after 1969 does not establish its title to the property in question. These documents are not of much evidentiary value as these documents came in existence after the dispute had arisen between the parties. In the absence of any other lawful claimant the appellant on the strength of the documents produced by him was rightly held to be the owner by the courts below the High Court. Attornment by the tenant in favour of the temple was also rightly held to be invalid. The appellant, in our opinion, would be entitled to recover possession as well as the arrears of rent.”

                  (Emphasis Supplied)

25. In Sri Ram Mandir, Jagtial v. S. Rajyalaxmi : (2019) 2 SCC 338, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Para No.19 as under:

                  “19. …After perusing the evidence on record, we observe that, the respondent-plaintiffs in order to prove their title have relied upon several permissions of the municipality and tax receipts to prove their title. But while the aforesaid documents might imply possession but they cannot be relied on to confer title upon the holder. Further, the respondent- plaintiffs have strongly relied upon the book of endowments as maintained by the Endowments Department which shows the boundaries of the temple. In any case, this document alone is not sufficient to claim the title over the suit premises as it was only intended to demarcate the temple premises.”

26. The Full Bench of Madras High Court in Ramaraju, S/O. N.A. Subbaraja vs The State Of Tamil Nadu : 2005 (2) CTC 741, held in Para 38 as under:

                  “38. It is of course true that in the two counter affidavits, the municipalities have taken the stand, quite expectedly and understandably, that they have no intention to take any step for removal of any encroachment from the road or road margins without following the due procedure of law and they do not have the intention to take steps for eviction of any person from any land not belonging to the municipalities. However, since the news item appearing in the News Papers gives the impression as if Rajapalayam Municipality intended to remove all encroachments pursuant to the order passed by the High Courts in W.P.No. 689 of 2005 and since certain misconceptions have arisen as if the Division Bench has given a blanket direction for removal of encroachment even without following due process of law, the matter is required to be clarified in the following manner :

                  (1) If the encroachment is on road or road margins, vested in Municipalities, the removal if any is to be effected only after following the procedure contemplated in Chapter IX of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and more particularly the provisions contained in Section 182 and Section 183(6) Before taking action under Section 182 of the District Municipalities Act, notice in writing giving atleast two weeks time should be served and, if the person avoids to receive the notice, such notice can be effected by affixure. However, notice by any other means, such as through public announcement or beating of drums or by general notice in newspapers, may not be sufficient.

                  (2) The decision in W.P.No. 689 of 2005 cannot be construed as having abrogated the statutory power of the Council under Sections 182 and 183. The Council may grant licence to put up verandas, balconies, sunshades, weather-frames and the like. Similarly, the Council has power to lease road sides and street margins for occupation on such terms and conditions and for such period as the Council may fix. However, such power under Sections 183(1) and 183(3) should be exercised keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 183(4) and no such licence under Section 183(1) or lease under Section 183(3) should be granted if the projection, construction or occupation is likely to be injurious to health or cause public inconvenience or otherwise materially interfere with the use of the road as such. Any projection or construction put up under Section 183(1) or (2) can be removed on expiry of the licence or the lease, as the case may be. Compensation is required to be paid in matters coming within the scope of 182(2).

                  (3) Payment of property tax, provisions of water connection or electricity by themselves cannot be construed as conferring any independent right, if the encroachment is otherwise unauthorised.

                  (4) The above directions and observations are also applicable to encroachment in respect of road or road margins coming within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporations or Town and Village Panchayats, in which event, necessary action can be taken by the concerned authorities by following the relevant provisions of law applicable to such Corporations or Panchayats.

                  (5) To the extent the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 are applicable, action can be taken only by following the procedure prescribed under such statutes. Similarly the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, are applicable to the Roads coming under the State Act.

                  (6) If the encroachment is on the land belonging to the Local Authorities, but such land is not part of the road or road margin or roadside land, eviction can be effected by following the procedure contemplated in law, namely, either by taking recourse to the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 or any other law applicable or otherwise by taking recourse to Civil Courts and not by use of unilateral force.

                  (7) So far as the encroachment on the land belonging to the Government is concerned, action for eviction if any can be taken only by the appropriate authority and by following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

                  (8) The directions issued in W.P.No. 689 of 2005 are applicable to removal of encroachments on roads and road margins and not other lands belonging to the Local Authorities or the State. The said decision should not be construed as giving a licence to the Local Authorities to cancel the existing license or lease or to remove the encroachments without following the procedure contemplated under the law.

                  (9) If any Civil Courts decree or interim order is holding the field, obviously, no action can be taken, unless and until such a decree or interim order is set aside or vacated in a manner known to law.”

                  (Emphasis Supplied)

27. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that W.P.No.6879 of 2025, which is filed by the wife and children of Sri Pydi Syamala Rao, is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.6879 of 2025 is dismissed.

28. Insofar as the Writ Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition (W.P.No.16408 of 2025) is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner therein has successfully established that the Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 to 8 have illegally occupied public space which is in front of the house belonging to the Petitioner which is constructed after securing approvals from the Municipality. The illegal occupation of the Unofficial Respondent in the open public space infront of the house belonging to the Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition, while on one hand being illegal, on the other hand, causes nuisance and create inconvenience to the lawful owners residing behind the illegal encroachments. The Photographs in Ex.P.6 in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 clearly reflects this situation.

29. Having considered these facts, on the last two occasions, this Court had directed Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioners in the 1st Writ Petition (W.P.No.6879 of 2025) and the Unofficial Respondent in the 2nd Writ Petition (W.P.No.16408 of 2025) to obtain Written Instructions from his Clients (Writ Petitioners in the 1st Writ Petition) as regards the time they would require to vacate the premises, also indicating that the said parties would be required to give an undertaking to this effect.

30. Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025, on instructions, would submit that the parties have not been able to take a decision in that regard and, therefore, requested the Court to consider the case on merit. In the normal course, for a person who has been on the property for a long time, Authorities would be required to adherence to the principles of Natural Justice by issuing advance Notice of eviction. In the present case, even such opportunity would not be available to the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 and the Unofficial Respondent in W.P. No.16408 of 2025, because Sri Pydi Syamala Rao had been given ample opportunity by the authority in compliance with the Order passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions, and that the Notice of Eviction dated 30.06.2022 has become final inasmuch as Sri Pydi Syamala Rao has not challenged the same.

31. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the said parties, namely the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 and the Unofficial Respondents in W.P.No.16408 of 2025, are not entitled to any further notice or enquiry, inasmuch as all the enquiries are complete in this regard.

32. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 and the Unofficial Respondents in W.P.No.16408 of 2025 are directed to vacate, lock, stock and barrel, within a period of four weeks from today. This Order itself shall be sufficient Notice to them to vacate the premises within four weeks.

33. Consequently, in the above premise, W.P.No.16408 of 2025 is allowed.

34. In the event that the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 and the Unofficial Respondents in W.P.No.16408 of 2025 do not vacate within the time granted, it is left open to the Writ Petitioner in the 2nd Writ Petition as well as the Official Respondent to summarily evict the Petitioner within a week thereafter. No order as to costs.

35. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.