APHC010140832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 7485/2025 Between: Veenam Srinivas Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIJAY BHASKAR KAKUNOOR B Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.7485 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent authorities in threatening to demolish a part of the Petitioner’s house and imposing penalty pursuant to the Notice vide I.R.No.WPRS No.19/2025, dated 17.02.2025 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Petitioner claims to have purchased the house property to an extent of 164 Sq. Yards bearing Door No.10-8-24, Vaddera Bazar, Narsaraopet, Palanadu District vide registered Sale Deed bearing document No.7524 of 2004. A Notice was issued by the Respondent No.3- Municipality under Sections 189, 192, 194, 336, 360 & 361 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 on 17.02.2025 intimating the Petitioner that the front side portion of the house of the Petitioner had occupied the road margin as per the survey conducted on 17.01.2025. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.03.2025 denying the encroachment on the road margin. As there is a threat of demolition of the house property of the Petitioner without passing any order pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 17.02.2025, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard M/s. K.B. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. Vallabhaneni Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.3-Municipality. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.3- Municipality submits that since reply submitted by the Petitioner has been received by the Respondent No.3-Municipality on 10.03.2025 the action if any would be initiated after passing orders on the explanation offered by the Petitioner. 3 5. Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Municipality, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, at the admission stage, with the following direction:- (i) The Respondent-Municipality shall take into consideration the explanation offered by the Petitioner and if required to conduct survey after giving notice to the Petitioner before passing orders. Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken by the Respondent- Municipality. 6. 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: 25.03.2025 IS 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.7485 of 2025 Date: 25.03.2025 IS