Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati under writ jurisdiction challenging the proposed demolition of residential houses by the Akividu Nagar Panchayat after issuance of a show cause notice. The petitioners, two individuals residing in Dharmapuram Agraharam, Akividu, sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in trying to demolish their residential houses bearing D.No.21-65 and D.No.21-26/3 as illegal and in violation of natural justice because no final order had been passed after the show cause notice dated 17.11.2025. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Akividu Nagar Panchayat were the respondents. The disputed land was identified as Sy.No.209/3, which was located on a tank bund. The respondent Nagar Panchayat submitted written instructions dated 20.01.2026 and a photograph showing a G+1 building belonging to the petitioners. Records from the Tahsildar indicated that the wife of petitioner No.1, Smt. Maraptla Sharamma, had already been allotted Plot No.1950 under NPI Patta distribution. The petitioners contended that the wife of petitioner No.1 did not reside with him and lived at a distant place with her daughter, while petitioner No.1 and his son resided in the subject house. They also expressed willingness to shift to another location if an alternate plot was allotted to them. The respondent argued that construction on the tank bund was prohibited and that since a plot had already been granted to a family member, another plot could not be allotted to another member of the same family. The High Court noted that the law prohibits making any construction or structures on a tank bund. It held that since the wife of petitioner No.1 had already been allotted a plot, the petitioners' request for another plot was unsustainable in law. The court further 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. This view was fortified by decisions of the Supreme Court and a Full Bench of the Madras High Court. The court found that the writ petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it with no order as to costs. As regards petitioner No.2, the court observed that she had approached the court without any basis or foundation and dismissed the writ petition as against her as premature. Interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to prevent demolition of residential houses after issuance of show cause notice dated 17.11.2025, alleging violation of natural justice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the land was on a tank bund where construction is prohibited and the petitioners lacked legal entitlement, as the family had already received an alternate plot. Held that mandamus cannot be issued where no legal right is established and the construction is illegal (Paras 2-8). B) Municipal Law - Tank Bund Encroachment - Prohibition on Construction - Not mentioned - The disputed structures were located on Sy.No.209/3 on a tank bund. The court observed that the law prohibits making any construction or structures on tank bund and that payment of municipal tax or having electricity connection does not create any vested right on such land. Held that the petitioners' request to shift to another location if allotted a plot was unsustainable (Paras 6-8). C) Property Law - Alternate Allotment - One Plot per Family - Not mentioned - The record showed that the wife of petitioner No.1, Smt. Maraptla Sharamma, had already been allotted Plot No.1950 under NPI Patta distribution. The court ruled that another plot cannot be allotted to another member in the same family, and thus petitioners' willingness to shift conditional on allotment was rejected. Held that prior allotment to a family member bars consideration of an additional plot (Paras 4, 7). D) Civil Procedure - Locus Standi / Premature Petition - No Basis for Petitioner No.2 - Not mentioned - The court found that petitioner No.2 approached the court without any basis or foundation; accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as against petitioner No.2 with the observation that it was premature for the time being. Held that no relief could be granted to petitioner No.2 at that stage (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners have a legal right to prevent demolition of structures constructed on a tank bund after show cause notice; whether prior allotment of plot to a family member disentitles petitioners from seeking alternative plot; whether payment of municipal taxes and electricity connection creates vested right over tank bund land; whether writ petition by petitioner No.2 is maintainable
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. The court 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. The writ petition was dismissed as against petitioner No.2 as premature for the time being. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.
Law Points
- Construction on tank bund is prohibited
- payment of municipal tax and electricity connection does not create vested right on tank bund
- prior allotment of plot to a family member bars another allotment to same family
- writ petition without legal right is not maintainable
- no basis for petitioner No.2 results in dismissal as premature
