IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE O' o 0) w PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10526 OF 202^ Between: Guduri Ashok Kumar, S/o. Kishore Babu, Aged 48 years, D.NO. 123-18- 623A, Swarna Bharati Nagar, C-Block, New Road, Second Line Journalist Colony, Guntur. YSR ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary. Department of Municipalities Secretariat, Velagapudi Village, Guntur District 2. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 3. The City Planner, Guntur Municipal Corporation Guntur 4. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. ...Respondents F^tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high-handed action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Final Notice in Roc.No.04/2025/177 dated 10.04.2025 without considering the explanation of the Petitioner dated 17.02.2025 threatening to dispossess/demolish the PetitiOTiers^jDroperty admeasuring 80 sq.yards in Door No. 123-18-623A, Sw^ffl^Bfi^rati Nagar, C- Block, New Road, Second Line, YSR Journalist Qbigny,, Gj^intur, as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently to set aside the Impugned Final Notice in Roc.No.04/2025/177 dated 10.04.2025 forthwith to direct Respondents to not interfere with the peaceful possession of the Petitioners property admeasuring 80 sq.yards in Door No. 123-18-623A, Swarna Bharati Nagar, C-Block, New Road, Second Line, YSR Journalist Colony, Guntur. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Impugned Final Notice dated 10.04.2025 forthwith to direct the Respondents to not interfere with Petitioners property admeasuring 80Sq.yards in D.No.123-18-623A, Swarna Bharati Nagar, C- Block, New Road, Second Line, YSR Journalist Colony, Guntur. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: APHC010211772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10526/2025 Between: Guduri Ashok Kumar ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.10526 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 10.04.2025 in Rbc.No.04/2025/177 calling upon the Petitioner to remove the encroachment in Sy.No.221/6A in Journalist colony, Guntur. The Petitioner admittedly was granted Ac.0.03 cents in Plot No.64 by Government on 10.11.2006 vide Rc.No.465/03-D. Subsequently, in the land admeasuring 80 square yards abutting the petitioner’s land, a shed was constructed. While so, the Respondent-Authority issued show cause notice dated 13.02.2025 calling upon the Petitioner to vacate the encroached portion of the property. Subsequently, the impugned proceeding 2. dated 10.04.2025 was issued. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 3. impugned notice was issued by the City Planner and the same is not in consonance with Sections 405 and 406 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned Counsel contends that as per Sections 405 and 406 of the Act, 2 the Commissioner shouid issue notice and the City Pianner has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. 4. On facts, learned counsel for the Petitioner does dispute that 80 square yards of adjacent property encroached by the Petitioner and submitted that applications made seeking for regularization of the property and therefore, the impugned notice cannot be sustained both on fact and on law. not was are 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation submits that the City Planner was authorized to issue the impugned notice in exercise of delegation of powers under Office Order issued by the Commissioner of Guntur Municipal Corporation O.O.N0.II/2024/CI dated 17.10.2024 in exercise of power conferred under Section 119 of the Act. vide 6. As regards the encroachment, the learned standing counsel submits that since there is no dispute that the Petitioner is an encroacher to an extent of 80 Sq. Yards, the impugned order issued by the Respondent-Authority cannot be faulted. 7. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the view that as per Section 119 of the Act, any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed on the Commissioner can be 3 6 performed by such Municipal Officer whom the Commissioner specifically empowers. The Section 119 of the Act reads as under: 119. Municipal Officers may be empowered to exercise certain of the powers etc., of the Commissioner:- (1) [xxx] Any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner by or under any of the provisions of this Act may be exercised, performed or discharged, under the control of the Commissioner and subject to his revision and to such conditions, if any, as may be imposed, or as he shall think fit to impose in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, by any Municipal Officer whom the Commissioner generally or specially ernpowers by orders in writing in this behalf, and to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered the word “Commissioner" occurring in any provision in this Act shall be deemed to include such officer. i V ' ] 8. The Office order dated 17.10.2024 referred above empowers the City Planner to sign on notices for eviction of encroachments at SI.No.6 thereof. 9. |n that view, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not sustainable as regards lack of authority of the 4 \ City Planner to sign on the impugned notice, encroachment is not in dispute, the Petitioner cannot seek to validate the encroachment on the ground that applications filed for regularization. The Petitioner having been allotted a plot under a concessional rate, this Court does not find justification in the act of encroachment by the Petitioner. Since the are any Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned notice and the writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. 10. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department Municipalities Secretariat, Velagapudi Village, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Pradesh. 3. The City Planner, Guntur Municipal Corporation Guntur 4. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 5. One CC to Sri Arun Showri G., Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the GP for Revenue,- High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev AP, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies of Guntur, Andhra sree f HIGH COURT DATED:23/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10526 of 2025 of ANDH^ I 2 APR 2025 Current Section <9 tni o DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS