APHC010116982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6449/2025 Between: Shaik Mobina ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of „Writ of Mandamus‟ declaring the impugned Encroachment Notice dated 03-03-2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, directing the petitioners to remove the fruit juice shop situated on the eastern side of the house bearing D. No.3-2-140, 140/1, 2nd Block, 3rd Ward, Vinnamala Village, Naidupeta Panchayat, Tirupathi District, presently within the limits of Naidupeta Municipality, without issuing any notice or opportunity and following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principle of natural justice, more specifically contrary to the Order of this Hon‟ble Court dated 19- 12-2024 passed in W.P. No.29758 of 2024, consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to demolish the fruit juice shop situated on the eastern side of the house bearing D.No.3-2-140, 2nd Block, 3rd Ward, Vinnamala Village, Naidupeta Panchayat, Tirupathi District, presently within the limits of Naidupeta Municipality, or any part thereof, except in accordance with law, and to pass such…” 2. The Petitioners have purchased two storied building of about 3 ankanams, 39 Sq. feet of ground floor or 28.4/9 Sq. yards or 23.89 Sq. meters or 255 Sq. feet and 3 ankanams and 39 Sq. feet of 1st floor, situated towards south side house bearing D.No.3-2-140, 140/1, 2nd block, 3rd ward, Vinnamala Village, Naidupeta Panchayat along with the Respondents. The Petitioners purchased the property in the name of their common ancestor by name late Shaik Mohammed Saheb, through the registered sale deed bearing document No.933/1992, dated 03.09.1992. As there are disputes in between the Petitioners and the unofficial Respondent Nos.7 to 14, a suit was filed in O.S. 3 No.199 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet for partition of the subject property. 3. While so, the said suit was dismissed and the Petitioners have filed appeal in A.S. No.27 of 2018, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, and the same is pending. The Respondent No.2 had issued an endorsement vide ROC.No.327/2024-G1, dated 20.11.2024, calling upon the Petitioners to appear on 22.11.2024 at 11:00 am for enquiry regarding the illegal encroachment said to have been made by the Petitioners. 4. On 29.11.2024, as the staff of the 2nd Respondent visited the premises and tried to measure the same without issuing any prior notice, Petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.29758 of 2024 before this Court, questioning the action of the 2nd Respondent in attempting to demolish the premises of the Petitioners located in the eastern side of the house bearing D.No.3-2-140. 140/1, 2nd block, 3rd ward, Vinnamala village, Naidupeta Panchayat, Tirupati District. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide Order dated 19.12.2024 and operative portion of the order reads as follows: “In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to submit their explanation in detail enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim to the above said endorsement dated 20.11.2024 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said endorsement dated 4 20.11.2024 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and the un-official respondent Nos.7 to 14, specifically and others/complainants, if any, giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject fruit juice shop, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive action and there shall not be any further encroachments/constructions. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall beno order as to costs.” 5. Despite this Court’s direction, as extracted above, the 2nd Respondent issued the impugned notice dated 03.03.2025 under Sections 192, 193 and 336 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1965 stating that the Petitioners have encroached the road and thereby calling upon the Petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment within seven (07) days of the receipt of the said notice. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that enquiry was directed to be conducted by this Court in W.P.No.29758 of 2024 has been violated. As no such enquiry was conducted as directed, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that the Respondent No.2 will be conducting enquiry in terms of the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No.29758 of 2024 and requested this Court to instruct the 5 Petitioners to submit their explanation by treating the impugned notice as show-cause notice. 8. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following directions: (1) the Petitioners shall submit their explanation within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by treating the impugned notice dated 03.03.2025 as show-cause notice. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No.29758 of 2024. (2) The Respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the Petitioners till the orders are passed by the Respondent authority. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 18.03.2025. SCH 6 510 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.6449 of 2005 Date: 18.03.2025. SCH