APHC010242322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12700/2025 Between: Talari Chinna Pullanna, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K VISWANATH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12700 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing impugned Encroachment Notice vide No.05/TPS/S-23/2025, dated 25.04.2025 calling upon the petitioner to remove the Residential House No. 15/1835 (Old H.No.15-348-C, Tadipatri Municipal Assessment No.363), C.B.Road, Revenue Ward No.15, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District, without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner purchased the schedule property vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.2062 of 1968. Thereafter, the property was included in the family partition and the property fell to the share of petitioner vide registered partition deed bearing Document No.1305 of 1970. The petitioner was in physical possession and enjoyment of the same all through. 3. While so, the impugned notice dated 25.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 under Sections 189, 192, 194, 336, 360 and 361 of A.P.Municipality Act, 1965 calling upon the petitioner to remove the subject property as it is falling in canal area at Vijayanagar Colony Road. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.2 straight way issued the impugned notice dated 25.04.2025 directing the 3 petitioner to vacate the subject property cannot be sustained considering the longstanding possession. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, would submit that rain water was being stagnated in the canal area during rainy season, because of the construction of the petitioner. Therefore, impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsels, this Court taking note of longstanding possession of the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing should be provided before taking further course of action against the petitioner. 7. In that view, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: a) The petitioner shall submit a detailed explanation, claiming his right and title over the subject property in question, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; b) On such submission, the Respondent Authorities shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) weeks thereafter. c) The Respondent Authorities shall also provide an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner, if so required. d) Meanwhile, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date. 4 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.05.2025 SNI 5 186 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12700/2025 DATE: 09.05.2025 SNI