Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/34134/2016 of Sanjay Goyal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 20 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34134/2016 Between: 1. SANJAY GOYAL, S/O.RAMBABU GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.12-3-35, PEENA
APHC010599832016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 34134/2016
Between:
1. SANJAY GOYAL, S/O.RAMBABU GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.12-3-35, PEENA MOHAMMED STREET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
A.P.SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE CAPITAL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. VIJAYAWADA
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
REP.BY
ITS
COMMISSIONER VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 toto issue the Writ order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the structures in the premises bearing D.No.76- 18-338, Plot No.338
Part, Iron Yard, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada without following the due process of law and pending consideration of application for regularization is arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of provisions of Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct to follow due process of law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 42110 OF 2016
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 demolition of construction of resident house bearing D.No.76-18- 338, Plot No.338 Part, Iron Yard, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada without following due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.34134 of 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents and their officials in trying to demolish the petitioner’s building bearing D.No.76-18-338, Plot No.338 Part, Iron Yard, Bhavanipuram Vijayawada.
2. The petitioner claims title and ownership over the said property and obtained construction permission for constructing a residential dwelling unit. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the threatened action of the respondents to demolish the petitioner’s property. It is submitted that the respondents are bound to follow the due procedure contemplated under Sections 114 and 115 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, 2014. It is further submitted that any action taken by the respondents without following the said statutory provisions would be illegal and arbitrary.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the respondents shall follow the due process of law as contemplated under the APCRDA Act, 2014, in the event any further action is required to be taken against the petitioner’s property by the respondents.
4. Recording the same, the present writ petition is disposed off, leaving it open for respondent No.2 to proceed against the petitioner’s property only by following the due process of law as contemplated under the APCRDA Act, 2014. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:21.07.2026 KGM
Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
WRIT PETITION No.34134 of 2016 Date: 21.07.2026
KGM