APHC010225352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) (■> THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11192 OF 2025 Between: Mukku Sathyavanthudu, S/o. Late M. Subbarayulu Chetty, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. D.No. 1-2-118J, Ground Floor, Prakasam Road, Adjacent to GRT Jewelers, Court Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Velagpudi, Amaravathi, A.P 2. The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor District 3. The Town Planning Officer, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor Distrit 4. The Executive Engineer, R and B Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5. Boyareddy Praveen Kumar Reddy, S/o. Vasudeva Reddy, Aged about 48 years, R/o. D.No. 1-7/B, Mittapalyam, Chanadragiri, Tirupati, Chittor District. Secretariat, ...Respondents Petition 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 of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and their employees in issuing notice dated 10/04/2025 and trying to demolish the portion of the building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, Chittor District though the building is in good condition as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of settled Principles of Law, and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and set- aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the subject flat of the Petitioner in which he's having lease lA NO: 2 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 direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to demolish the building of the Petitioner building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3: SRI POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI CH B R P SEKHAR The Court made the following order: H I; -01 APHC010225352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11192/2025 Between: 1.MUKKU SATHYAVANTHUDU, S/0. LATE M. SUBBARAYULU CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/0. D.NO. 1-2-118J, GROUND FLOOR, PRAKASAM ROAD, ADJACENT TO GRT JEWELERS, COURT ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P 2. A, A 3. A, A 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, S 5.THE TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6.THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DEPARTMENT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8.BOYAREDDY PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY, S/0. VASUDEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 1-7/B, MITTAPALYAM, A CHANADRAGIRI, TIRUPATI, CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition 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 of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and their employees in issuing notice dated 10/04/2025 and trying to demolish the portion of the building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District though the building is in good condition as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of settled Principles of Law, and violation of Articles 14. 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and set- aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the subject fiat of the Petitioner in which he's having lease and pass 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 grant leave to file the main Writ Petition challenging the Notice dated 10/04/2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent to the 5th Respondent herein and pass lA NO: 2 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 direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to demolish the building of the Petitioner building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J. Prakasam Road, Tirupati. Chittoor District, and pass lA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to permit the proposed petitioner NO 2 to come on record as petitioner in the above writ petition NO 11192 OF 2025 and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA pass Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2,GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 3.CH B R P SEKHAR 4.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP X'' The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by w proceedings dated 10.04.2025, whereby the respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 456 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and notified the structural stability of the building bearing D.No.1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, and further called upon the occupants of the building including the owner, to pull down/remove the potential irreparable portions and secure the stability of the structural to prevent the damage to the property and also the risk of lives of the occupants. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate, has taken a portion of the said building, on lease and running his office. The remaining portion of the building is also under occupation of Advocates, who are running their offices. This Court, on 09.05.2025, directed the petitioner to obtain Structural Stability Certificate from the NT, Tirupati or SVU Engineering Department. This Court also niade it clear that the Structural Stability Certificate should not be merely on the opinion, but should be on the technical parameters. 3. 4. A report dated 08.07.2025, submitted by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati, was filed vide U.S.R.No.79403 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025. This Court has perused the report submitted and the summary of the report reads as follows: “Based on the visual inspection of the overall building, the cracks are conspicuously visible and are not just superficial, highlighting the loss in the intactness of the structural members, which denote that the building is in quite distressed state of condition. The undersigned are of opinion that the structural soundness and stability of the said building “DOESNOT APPEAR SATISFACTORY”, and hence, it appears to be V unsafe for human habitation for dwelling, or any other office or commercial purposes related hitherto.” The Technical Expert has also submitted a report, which would clearly indicate that the building is unsafe for human habitation and for dwelling and also not fit for running any office for any commercial purposes. Considering the report, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 2 & 3, immediately, to take steps to seal the building. The liberty is given to the petitioner and other occupants of the building for removal of their articles and other movables, within 15 days. The portion of the petitioner and other occupants shall be given access to them, as and when they intend to remove their movables and other articles. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 shall take steps for demolition of the building. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to 5. 6. 7. costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT! REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER To, S 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Development, Secretariat, Velagpudi, Amaravathi, A.P 2. The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor District 3. The Town Planning Officer, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor Distrit 4. The Executive Engineer, R and B Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Potham Vengala Reddy SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In Advocate [OPUC] CCs to GP for Roads & Buildings High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri Ch B R P Sekhar Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev AP Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CD Copies GSG and Urban . f ‘ V 0 HIGH COURT DATED:21/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 11192 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS