Oral Order:

1. Heard Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities.

2. Present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief:

                  “…….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to demolish the structures of residential houses belonging to the petitioners bearing D.No.21-65 and D.No.21-26/3, Siddapuram road, Dharmapura Agraharam, Akividu Grampanchayat and Mandal, West Godavari District without passing final order after issuance of Show Cause Notice Roc.No.29/2025/G1, dated 17.11.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to demolish the of residential houses made by the petitioners and structures and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances the case”.

3. Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for Respondent No.2 has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Panchayat, Akiveedu, dated 20.01.2026. Copy of the Written Instruction is also furnished to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. This Written Instruction is taken on record..

4. The Photograph shown is a G+1 building belonging to the Writ Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also submitted the NPI Patta Distribution and Possession handed over details indicating that a house site is in the name of wife of the Writ Petitioner No.1 herein namely Smt. Maraptla Sharamma bearing Plot No.1950. These details are furnished by the Tahsildar, Akiveedu Mandal, West Godavari. It is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the wife of the Writ Petitioner No.1 was already allotted a plot, and therefore, another plot cannot be allotted to another member in the same family.

5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the wife of the Writ Petitioner No.1 does not reside with the Writ Petitioner No.1 and she resides at a distant place with her daughter. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner No.1 and his son reside in the subject house.

6. Having noted the above facts, the Written Instructions and the impugned Notice dated 17.11.2025 (Ex.P.1), it transpires from the facts that the house/land which is now in dispute in Sy.No.209/3 is on the tank bund and that the law prohibits making any construction or structures on the tank bund.

7. Since it is an admitted fact that the plot has already been granted in favour of the wife of Writ Petitioner No.1 namely Smt. Maraptla Sharamma, another plot cannot be allotted to a member in the same family. Therefore, the request of the Writ Petitioners that that the Writ Petitioners would be willing to shift to another location, if another plot is allotted to them, is unsustainable in law, and therefore, cannot be accepted.

8. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Order as to Costs. It is clarified that payment of municipal tax and having electricity connection does not create any vested right on any piece of land which is apparently a tank bund. View of this Court is fortified by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as under :

                  i. K. Moosa Haji’s Widow (Smt) Kannadiyil Ayissu and others vs. Executive Officer, Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Temple : (1996) 9 SCC 49 – Para No.3.

                  ii. R. V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another : (2003) 8 SCC 752 – Para No.26.

                  iii. Chairman, Board of Trustees, Sri Ram Mandir Jagtial, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Rajyalaxmi (Dead) and Others : (2019) 2 SCC 338 – Para No.19.

                  iv. Similar view was taken by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Ramaraju, s/o N.A. Subbaraja vs. The State of Tamilnadu : 2005 (2) CTC 741 – Para No.38

9. Insofar as the Writ Petitioner No.2 is concerned, it appears to the Court that without any basis or foundation, the said Writ Petitioner No.2 has approached this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as against Writ Petitioner No.2 with an observation that this Writ Petition is premature for the time being.

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