AP High Court Raps State For Devising 'Innovative Methods' To Take Over Private Property Without Due Process; Protects Citizen

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has condemned the State authorities (respondents) for concocting “innovative ways” of acquiring the property of one Raja Reddy (petitioner), despite the Court earlier directing the authorities to not dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.On 06.10.2025, the petitioner was issued a notice which stated that he had encroached on the road margin, and the said encroachment was stated to be coming in the way of a proposed road widening project. On the same date, the authorities issued a notice again, whereby, it was stated that the building constructed over the property of the petitioner was in a “dangerous position” and that the structure was required to be demolished keeping in view the safety of the citizens.Upon challenge of the first notice of encroachment, the High Court, vide an order dated 17.10.2025, directed the respondent authorities to not dispossess the petitioner from the property without following the due process of law, and further clarified that the respondents would have to follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) in the event the property of the petitioner was required for road widening.Challenging the second notice, the petitioner submitted that there was no constructed structure on the property except a compound wall, and argued that the authorities had devised a new method of taking over the property by stating that the building is precarious.Against this backdrop, Justice Harinath N held,“… it is evident that the respondent authorities are devising innovative methods for taking over the property of the petitioner without following the law of the land. This Court made it amply clear to the respondent authorities, while disposing of W.P. No. 29001 of 2025, that they must invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Unmindful of these directions, the issuance of the present notice calling upon the petitioner to remove a building which does not exist speaks volumes of the manner in which the respondent authorities are discharging their official duties.”Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the authorities to neither dispossess nor demolish the compound wall of the petitioner, and further directed the respondents to follow the 2013 Act in case the property is required for the process of road widening or any other public purpose.Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 30830/2025Case Title: Raja Reddy and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and OthersClick Here To Read/Download Order

AP High Court Raps State For Devising 'Innovative Methods' To Take Over Private Property Without Due Process; Protects Citizen

Saahas Arora

Tags