Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati heard two writ petitions together involving adjacent landowners in Krishnapuram Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. In W.P.No.6879 of 2025, the family of late Pydi Syamala Rao sought a writ of mandamus to restrain municipal authorities from demolishing their hut and pan shop on land in Survey No.42 and 16-28 without notice, alleging violation of natural justice and Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. In W.P.No.16408 of 2025, Kota Sithamma, a neighbor, sought a writ of mandamus directing municipal authorities to remove unauthorized construction and encroachment by the same family in front of her house, relying on previous court orders and an endorsement. The facts revealed that in 2019 she purchased 289 square yards with a registered sale deed, obtained building approval in 2020, and constructed a two-storied house. Her neighbor allegedly encroached on the road margin with a thatched hut without permission. She filed complaints and a civil suit O.S.No.32 of 2020, leading to an ad-interim injunction against the trespasser. Subsequent writ petitions resulted in directions to consider complaints and the issuance of municipal notices under Sections 192, 193, and 360 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. The present writ petitions raised competing claims regarding demolition without due process and failure to remove encroachments. The judgment's final order and reasoning are not included in the provided text, but the court was tasked with reconciling these conflicting positions while considering prior proceedings and statutory duties.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Demolition without due process - Constitution of India, Article 14, 21, 300-A - The first writ petition challenged proposed demolition of a hut and pan shop without notice, alleging violation of natural justice and constitutional rights. The court was required to assess whether municipal action complied with statutory and constitutional safeguards (Paras 2, 7).
B) Municipal Law - Encroachment and Unauthorized Construction - Removal obligations under Sections 192, 193, 360 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 - The second writ petition sought a direction to municipal authorities to remove unauthorized construction and encroachment, citing previous court orders and complaints. The court examined the duty of the municipality to act against encroachments (Paras 3, 6-7).
C) Civil Procedure - Pendency of Civil Suit and Writ Jurisdiction - Impact of pending O.S.No.32 of 2020 - A civil suit for permanent injunction was pending between related parties, and an ad-interim injunction was granted; the court considered the interplay between civil proceedings and writ jurisdiction (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether demolition of petitioners' hut and pan shop without notice and due process violates natural justice and Articles 14, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India; Whether municipal authorities are obligated to remove unauthorized construction and encroachment under Sections 192, 193, 360 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965; How to reconcile competing claims of adjacent landowners regarding the same encroachment; Impact of pending civil suit O.S.No.32 of 2020 on writ jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Demolition without notice violates natural justice
- right to property under Article 300-A
- statutory duty of municipalities under Sections 192
- 193
- 360 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act
- 1965 to remove unauthorized construction
- writ jurisdiction in pending civil dispute
Case Details
2026 LawText (AP) (02) 26
Writ Petition Nos. 6879 & 16408 of 2025
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
Srinivas Ambati, T.D. Phani Kumar, Tandasa Radha Rani, Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, GP for Roads Buildings, GP Municipal Admin and Urban Dev AP
Pydi Prabhavathi, Pydi Malleswara Rao, Gandem Raju, Sampathirao Bhavani (W.P.No.6879 of 2025); Kota Sithamma (W.P.No.16408 of 2025)
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department; Amadavalasa Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner; Town Planning Officer, Amadavalasa Municipality; Tahsildar, Amadavalasa Mandal; Kota Sithamma; Pydi Prabhavathi, Pydi Malleswara Rao, Gandem Raju, Sampathirao Bhavani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Two writ petitions involving a dispute over alleged unauthorized construction and encroachment on municipal road margin land, with one side seeking to prevent demolition and the other seeking removal of the encroachment.
Remedy Sought
In W.P.No.6879 of 2025, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to restrain municipal authorities from demolishing their hut and pan shop without notice and to not interfere with their possession. In W.P.No.16408 of 2025, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing municipal authorities to remove unauthorized construction and encroachment by the other side in front of her house.
Filing Reason
Conflict between adjacent landowners regarding encroachment and municipal action; one side claimed demolition threat without due process, the other claimed failure to remove unauthorized structure despite prior orders and complaints.
Previous Decisions
W.P.No.3338 of 2021 disposed on 22.02.2021 directing electricity authorities to consider application; W.P.No.7285 of 2021 disposed on 01.04.2021 directing municipal authorities to consider representations; Municipal notices issued under Sections 192, 193, 360 on 20.05.2021; W.P.No.12043 of 2021 filed questioning notices; W.P.No.26550 of 2022 order dated 08.11.2024; Endorsement dated 08.05.2025; Civil suit O.S.No.32 of 2020 pending with ad-interim injunction dated 19.03.2020.
Issues
Whether demolition of petitioners' hut and pan shop without notice and due process violates natural justice and Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Whether municipal authorities are obligated to remove unauthorized construction and encroachment under Sections 192, 193, 360 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.
How to reconcile competing claims of adjacent landowners regarding the same encroachment.
Impact of pending civil suit O.S.No.32 of 2020 on writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners in W.P.No.6879 of 2025 argued that municipal authorities were taking steps to demolish their hut and pan shop without issuing any notice and without following due procedure, violating natural justice and constitutional rights.
Petitioner in W.P.No.16408 of 2025 argued that the husband of Unofficial Respondent No.5 encroached on road margin land and made a thatched hut without permission, causing nuisance, and that municipal authorities failed to remove the unauthorized construction despite her complaints and previous court orders.
Judgment Excerpts
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... 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
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...
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
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
Procedural History
On 26.04.2019, the second writ petitioner purchased property by registered sale deed. On 20.02.2020, she obtained building approval and constructed a house. On 19.03.2020, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted in O.S.No.32 of 2020. On 22.02.2021, W.P.No.3338 of 2021 was disposed directing electricity authorities to consider application. On 01.04.2021, W.P.No.7285 of 2021 was disposed directing municipal authorities to consider representations. On 20.05.2021, municipal notices under Sections 192, 193, 360 were issued to Sri Pydi Syamala Rao. W.P.No.12043 of 2021 was filed challenging those notices. W.P.No.26550 of 2022 had an order dated 08.11.2024. An endorsement was issued on 08.05.2025. The present writ petitions were filed in 2025 and heard together.
Acts & Sections
- Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965: 192, 193, 360
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 21, Article 300-A
