APHC010133152014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31287/2014 Between: Ch. Nagalakshmi, Guntur & 2 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Prl Secy Maud Dept Hyd Ano and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to demolish the shops of the Petitioners bearing Shop Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in D.No. 5-55-80 situate at Ward No.3, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District pending the Representations dt. 14.07.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and without following due process of law and violative of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the 2nd Responent not to demolish the shops of the Petitioners bearing Shop Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in D.No. 5-55-80 situate at Ward No.3, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District and pass....” 2. The petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein are the absolute owners and possessors of shop Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively in “Rohini Arcade” bearing D.No.5-55-80 situated at ward No.3, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District and ever since the said purchase, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent, without affording an opportunity of hearing, vide notice dated 01.05.2007 directed the petitioners to remove the shops as the said area was exclusively meant for parking. 3. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners filed O.S.Nos.357, 358 and 359 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the 2nd respondent filed a memo stating that they would not demolish the suit property. But however, as the petitioners have not contested in the said suits, the same were dismissed for default and thereafter, the petitioners have subsequently filed applications for restoration of the same. While so, the 2nd respondent has issued another notice dated 22.03.2010 directing the petitioners to remove the shops within seven days, challenging which the petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.13448 and 13443 of 2010 which were disposed of on 16.06.2010 by directing the petitioners to submit an explanation to the notice dated 22.03.2010 treating it as show cause notice, in pursuance of which, the petitioners have submitted their detailed explanation on 14.07.2010. 4. Pending consideration of the said explanation, the 2nd respondent has visited the petitioners’ property on 07.10.2014 and has threatened to remove the same. Challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to demolish the shops of the petitioners in D.No.5-55-80 situated at ward No.3, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District pending the representation dated 14.07.2010, without following the due process of law, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 18.10.2014, this Court has passed the following order: “…Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have submitted their explanation to the show cause notice dt.22-03-2010 as directed by this Court in its order dt.16-06-2010 in W.P.No.13448 of 2010 and without passing any orders thereon, respondents are attempting to demolish the shops purchased by the petitioners. I see force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, there shall be an interim direction as prayed for.” 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Mr. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel. 7. During the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 18.10.2014, they have not interfered with the petitioners’ possession over the subject property and further submitted that if at all they intend to demolish the same, the authorities would follow due process of law. 8. In view of the said submission, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners’ shops bearing Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in D.No. 5-55- 80 situated at Ward No.3, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District, without following the due process of law. 9. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:24.01.2025 Gss