APHC010151712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 7732/2025 Between: Konudula Ramesh Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.7732 of 2025 O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed questioning the proposed action of the Respondents in trying to demolish the building of the Petitioner bearing Dr.No.15-678-1 with Assessment No.1007017482 in Plot No.10 admeasuring 256.66 square yards in Sy.No.608-B and 608-A in an approved lay out L.P.No.40/93, 5th Ward, Buggaiah Compound situated in Tadipatri Municipal Area, Tadipatri, Anantapur District by issuing encroachment Notice No.1/TPS/S-30/2025 dated 15.03.2025 under Sections 189, 192, 194, 336, 360 and 361 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 without issuing any prior notice. 2. The Petitioner claims to have purchased the schedule property referred above under a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2008 vide document No.5396/2008 in a Bank auction conducted by the State Bank of India. In the said sale deed, there was wrong mention of the Door Number and Assessment Number was not mentioned. Therefore, the same was rectified by way of registered deed dated 30.08.2016 vide document 3 No.5058 of 2016. While so, Respondent No.2 issued encroachment notice dated 15.03.2025 directing the Petitioner to remove the compound wall. The Petitioner with an intention to make peace with Respondent-authorities demolished the compound wall to the extent indicated on his own accord. However, on 22.03.2025, the Respondent authorities sought to demolish the scheduled property without any prior notice. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned standing counsel Sri G.Lakshmi Narayana on instructions would submit that the Respondent-Authorities are not intending to demolish the scheduled premises as on date. It is also submitted that if they find any encroachment by the Petitioner, due notice would be given to the Petitioner and thereafter action will be initiated. 4. In view of the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of leaving it open to the Respondents-authorities to initiate action, if required, by following the procedure contemplated under the law. Till the notice and consequential enquiry is completed, no coercive action will be 4 initiated against the Petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 24.03.2025 KLP