(Prayer: 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the 2nd Resporident Corporation under the impugned notice Roc.No.3659/2026-H3 dt.15-06-2026 issued under section 401,405 and 406 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1994 calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment on 21-06-2026 without issuing any show cause notice before determining the alleged encroachment as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of provisions of Municipal Corporation Act apart from violation of fundamental rights granted under Articles 14,16,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Violation of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1994 and consequently set aside the impugned notice and direct the respondents the follow the due procedure and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to grant stay of all proceedings including evection of the petitioner' property in. Sy.No. 31 of Medaline Revenue village pursuant) to the notice Dt. 15-06-2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent Corporation pending disposal of the above writ petition, pass

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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,declare the action of the 2''''Respondent Corporation under the impugned notice Roc.No.3659/2026-H3 dt.15-06-2026 issued under section 401,405 and 406 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1994 calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment on 21-06-2026 without issuing any show cause notice before determining the alleged encroachment as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of provisions of Municipal Corporation Act apart from violation of fundamental rights grantiid under Articles 14,16,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Violation of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1994 and consequently set aside the impugned notice and direct the respondents the follow the due procedure and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 grant stay of all proceedings including evection of the petitioner’ property in Sy.No. 31 of Medaline Revenue village pursuant to the notice Dt. 15-06-2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent Corporation pending disposal of the above writ petition, pass)

Common Order

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of notice dated 15.06.2026, whereby the respondent Corporation has treated the petitioners as encroachers of Kalava Poramboke land in Sy.No.31 of Medaline Revenue Village at Wharf Road. The said notice has also intimated the petitioners that the land is proposed to be utilized for the establishment of Cocanada Port Food Hub at Wharf Road under the PM SVANidhi Programme.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' grandfather was granted an assignment patta in the year 1978 and thereafter the petitioners' father purchased the property by way of a registered sale deed in the year 1980. The property was subsequently gifted in favour of the petitioners vide registered documents. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property for the last four decades. It is submitted that the said notice ought not to have been issued.

3. It is submitted that, in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners resisted the illegal attempts of the respondent Corporation to dispossess them and filed W.P.No.40587 of 2015, which was disposed of on 03.07.2017. The learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the assigned land without following due process of law. It is submitted that the petitioners had also filed W.P.No.25643 of 2019 when the revenue authorities sought to dispossess them. Vide order dated 06.02.2008, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question by the legal heirs of the original assignee pattadar.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.88 of 2000 seeking compensation for the illegal dismantling of the construction in the plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, on 21.10.2005. Thereafter, the petitioners filed A.S.No.175 of 2005, which was allowed on 14.10.2009, and the defendants therein paid compensation for the illegal demolition of the property. It is submitted that the impugned notice does not refer to any of the earlier proceedings, including the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. It is also submitted that the respondents, under the pretext of setting up a Food Hub under the PM SVANidhi Programme, cannot overrule the earlier orders passed by this Court.

5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on written instructions, submits that the petitioners are in occupation of the canal bund, which is classified as Government poramboke land. It is also submitted that the petitioners are claiming patta in Survey No.31/1A1, whereas the said survey number was not sub-divided at any point of time as per the revenue records. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot continue in occupation of Government poramboke land and that Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, entitles the Commissioner to evict any such encroacher without issuing any notice.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State.

7. The impugned proceedings do not refer to any of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The impugned proceedings also do not refer to the patta certificate granted in favour of the petitioners. Survey No.31/1A1 was mentioned by the petitioners in O.S.No.88 of 2000, and the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector were party respondents/defendants in the said suit. The defendants did not raise the said plea either before the Trial Court while adjudicating O.S.No.88 of 2000 or before the Appellate Court while deciding A.S.No.175 of 2005.

8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to submit all their documents, including the earlier orders passed by this Court, and the respondents shall consider the same in the light of the directions issued by this Court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the event the respondents require the property in possession of the petitioners for any public purpose, they shall follow due process of law for acquiring the petitioners' land.

9. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.