logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 581 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 7596 Of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Parties : Kandrakonda Samrajyam & Another Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration And Urban Development Department, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: P. Sai Surya Teja, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP For Revenue, T. Venu Gopal, GP Muncipal Admn & Urban Dev AP.
Date of Judgment : 17-03-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

Oral Order (Lunch Motion):

1. Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Sri B. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Notice issued by the Narasaraopet Municipality (Respondent No.2) directing the Writ Petitioners to voluntarily vacate from the premises. The Notice has been issued on the strength of the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 20.12.2025 (Ex.P.2) bearing Rc.No.3875/2010-G. It is submitted by the Writ Petitioners herein that the impugned Notice grating seven days time to voluntarily vacate from the premises is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

3. This Court has perused the impugned Notice dated 10.03.2026 (Ex.P.1). The content of the Notice would clearly indicate that this eviction is only a consequential proceedings to the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Rc.No.3875/2010-G dated 20.12.2025 (Ex.P.2). This Court has perused the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer which is an elaborate Order and the said Order dealt with several issues and contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners herein. It is informed by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Writ Petitioners have filed ‘Revision’ before the Joint Collector (Respondent No.3) and the same is pending before the Joint Collector. He would also submit that the Revision Petition was filed on 29.01.2026, but the Joint Collector has not even numbered the Revision. It is the apprehension of the Writ Petitioners that while the proceedings are pending before the Revenue Authorities, the Respondent No.2 might proceed to execute the directions of the Respondent No.4.

4. Having considered the facts, this Court is of the opinion that the substantive Order is the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent No.4) on 20.12.2025 and the Writ Petitioners have already filed the Revision Petition before the competent authority. If the Respondent No.2 is required to be injuncted from proceeding with the proposed action under challenge, the only way-out for the Writ Petitioners is to secure an Order in the Revenue Proceedings, which is now pending before the Joint Collector in the form of Revision. The impugned Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 is only a consequence of the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as indicated earlier. (Please see Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : 1961 SCC Online SC 82 - Para No.16, Amarjeet Singh and others Vs. Devi Ratan and others : (2010) 1 SCC 417 – Para No.28).

5. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present Writ Petition, inasmuch as the Writ Petitioners are required to secure an Interim Order in the Revenue Proceedings and not in the present Proceedings. What cannot be achieved directly, cannot be achieved by indirect means either. (Please see Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Vs. State of Punjab and others : (2019) 16 SCC 95 – Para No.44).

6. This apart, since Respondent No.2 had initiated proceedings against the Writ Petitioners in the process of executing the Order passed by the Revenue Authorities, this Court opines that the grant of seven days time for voluntarily vacating the subject area cannot be in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

7. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the pendency of the Revision, where the Office of the Joint Collector has not even numbered the same, there shall be a direction to the Respondent No.2 not to initiate any coercive steps only for a period of three weeks from today.

8. Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities is directed to convey the gist of this Order to the Respondent No.2 forthwith for effective compliance. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merit either with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Order or the merits of the present case. No Order as to Costs.

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