Andhra Pradesh HC Orders Adoni Municipality to Clear Road Encroachments Within Five Weeks, Rejects Alternate-Site Approach
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad directed Adoni Municipality to issue show-cause notices and remove temporary sheds blocking a 33-foot colony road, rejecting the Commissioner's proposal to allot alternate sites to encroachers as contrary to public interest.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, on 4 May 2026, directed the Adoni Municipality to issue show-cause notices to encroachers on a 33-foot colony road and to clear all encroachments within five weeks. Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, sitting singly, disposed of Writ Petition No. 10909/2026 filed by R P Kousalya, a resident of H. No. M.I.G. 401, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Adoni Town, Kurnool District. The petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus against the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Sub-Collector, Adoni Division, the Adoni Municipality, and the Tahsildar, Adoni, for their inaction in removing temporary sheds that had reduced the effective width of the road from 33 feet to approximately 10 to 15 feet. The court rejected the municipality's suggestion that encroachers be allotted alternate sites, holding that such a course would embolden future encroachments and run against public interest.
The Dispute Before the Court
Kousalya owns Plot No. 68C in Survey No. 378/B, admeasuring 433.33 square yards, situated in Ward 21, LIC Colony, within the limits of Adoni Municipality, Adoni Sub-Division, Kurnool District. The plot abuts a 33-foot colony road laid out under L.P. No. 3/83.
Temporary sheds erected by encroachers on that road had, according to written instructions submitted by the Commissioner of Adoni Municipality on 24 April 2026, reduced the effective road width to approximately 10 to 15 feet. The Commissioner's instructions acknowledged that this reduction was causing significant hurdles for vehicular movement and was restricting access to the petitioner's plot.
Despite this acknowledgment, when the matter was heard on 27 April 2026, the Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 3 — the Adoni Municipality — placed before the court proceedings issued by the Commissioner to the Tahsildar dated 27 April 2026. Those proceedings requested the Tahsildar to explore the possibility of allotting alternate sites to the inhabitants occupying the road.
The petitioner's prayer was for a declaration that the respondents' inaction was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and for a direction to remove the temporary sheds.
Why Alternate-Site Allotment Was Rejected
The court found no legal support for the Commissioner's position. The judgment records that allotting alternate sites to encroachers would embolden prospective encroachers and be detrimental to public interest. The court treated this as a settled proposition, reinforced by the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121.
Extracting paragraph 31 of that judgment, the court noted the Supreme Court's holding that it is not, as a rule, necessary to provide encroachers with alternative accommodation before ejecting them from public property. The Supreme Court had qualified this by saying each case requires examination on its own facts, but the general rule runs against rewarding encroachment with alternate accommodation.
The court also drew on paragraph 10 of the same decision, which addresses the procedure to be followed depending on how long an encroachment has subsisted. Where encroachment is of recent origin, the need to follow natural justice procedures may be obviated because no one has a right to encroach on public property. Where, however, a local body has allowed encroachers to remain in settled possession for a long time, a modicum of reasonable notice — two weeks or ten days — with personal or substituted service is necessary before removal.
Applying that framework, the court directed that show-cause notices be issued, giving encroachers an opportunity to vacate voluntarily before any forcible removal.
The Court's Reasoning on Public Interest
The court observed that no one has a right to obstruct a public way. The Commissioner's own written instructions had confirmed a “bottle-neck” effect caused by the encroachments, creating inconvenience to the general public. The court held that private rights, if any, must yield to public interest in such circumstances.
Extracting paragraph 30 of Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, the court reiterated that encroachment of public property obstructs planned development, ecology, and sanitation, and that it is the duty of the State and local bodies to preserve and protect public property.
The court also addressed natural justice directly. Since it was directing the municipality to issue show-cause notices to all alleged encroachers before any removal, it clarified that the order would not violate the principles of natural justice.
Directions Issued to Adoni Municipality
The court issued three specific directions to Respondent No. 3, the Adoni Municipality:
First, show-cause notices are to be issued to the encroachers, calling upon them to vacate within ten days or two weeks and to dismantle and remove the encroachments voluntarily.
Second, if the encroachers do not vacate voluntarily within that period, the municipality and the other official respondents are to clear the encroachments within four weeks from 4 May 2026, using reasonable force if necessary.
Third, before the expiry of five weeks from 4 May 2026, Respondent No. 3 is to clear all encroachments on the 33-foot wide layout road and make it available to the public for use.
Order
Writ Petition No. 10909/2026 was disposed of on 4 May 2026 with the directions set out above. No order as to costs was made. All interlocutory applications, if any, were closed in terms of the order.