APHC010122632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6145/2025 Between: Ungarala Mahesh & Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO.6145 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings vide R.O.C.No.723/20925/G1, dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2-Corporation in respect of the house bearing Door No.25-39-101 of Annavarapu Padu Gram Panchayat, Ongole Municipal Corporation under Sections 401, 405 & 406 of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as illegal and arbitrary and to pass such other orders. 2. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent- Corporation. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that they are the owners of an extent of 150 Sq. yards situated in Plot No.45 of Sy.No.107/2A, Block No.6, Ward No.6 of Annavarapu Padu Gram Panchayat, part of Ongole Municipal Corporation vide document No.3860 of 2017, dated 16.06.2017. The Petitioners had made an application for granting approval for construction on 24.12.2017 and the same was granted by Permit No.1035/0819/B/ONG/AGHRMRES/2017, dated 24.10.2017. Though the Petitioners were proceeding as per the approved building plan, the impugned notice was issued by the Respondent-Corporation stating that the Petitioners had encroached the road of an extent of 450 Sq. feet and constructed boundary wall. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent authorities before conducting the survey, did not issue any prior notice to Petitioner and the impugned notice suffers for want of compliance of principles of natural justice. 3 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent- Corporation on instructions submits that the impugned notice was issued pursuant to Town Surveyor’s report. It was also mentioned in the written instructions, which were passed on to the Court that the Respondent-Corporation would consider the explanation of the Petitioners by treating the impugned notice as a show cause notice before further course of action as per the provisions of law. 5. As the impugned notice was issued without prior notice of survey, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the Writ Petitioners to submit explanation to the impugned notice treating the same as show cause notice and the Respondent-Corporation shall consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders thereon. 6. In the event, any survey is required to be conducted by the Respondent No.2-Corporation before determining the area of any encroachment, prior notice with sufficient time would be given to the Petitioners in that regard. Till the decision is passed by the Respondent-Corporation, status quo shall be maintained by both the Petitioners as well as the Respondent-Corporation. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 11.03.2025 IS 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO.6145 of 2025 Date: 11.03.2025 IS