IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12419 OF 2025 1/ Between: Dandu Nagesh @ PamidiNagesh, S/o. Late P.V. Narasimhulu, Aged about yrs, R/o. 17-538, Neeruganti Street, Old Town, Ananthapur District. 54 ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Municipal and Administration Department), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Ananthapuram Municipal Corporation Ananthapuram Town and Dist. rep by its commissioner. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue may a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notice dt. 15.04.2025 to the and violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Art. 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provision of GHMC Act, 1955 and consequently set aside the petitioner is as illegal, arbitrary same. ^ 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 direct the 2 nd respondent not to demolish structures/sheds existing in Sy. No. 162-4 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.09 % cents situated at Ananthapuram Municipal Corporation Area, Ananthapuram Town and District, by suspending impugned notice dt. 15.04.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P VENGALA REDDY (SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010246462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0;*S [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12419/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Dandunagesh @ Pamidinagesh AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court niade the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12419 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing the impugned Notice dated 15.04.2025 directing the Petitioner to remove the shop from the premises within a period of three days on the ground that the said shop is in the land of the central park of the Municipal Corporation as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land being an extent of Ac.0.09 % cents in Sy.No.162-A situated at Ananthapuram Municipal Corporation area, Ananthapuram Town. It is submitted that the Petitioner acquired the subject land through registered Will vide Document No. 15/1997, dated 30.01.1997 by his father in his favour and his brother and since then he has been in possession of the said property. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner had filed two suits i.e., O.S.No.1335 of 2021 and 804 of 2020 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapur, seeking permanent injunction against the Respondent Authorities and the same are pending for consideration. While so, the impugned Notice was issued stating that the Petitioner occupied the land of Central Park and directed him|o vacate the premises within 3 days. 3 3. Learned counsel further submits that considering the long standing possession of the Petitioner, the impugned Notice cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that the impugned notice cannot be faulted as the shop of the Petitioner comes within the Central Park land of the Municipal Corporation and no equities can be extended to the Petitioner. 5. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that because of the long standing possession and the registered Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner, requires thorough enquiry as held Division Bench of this Court in M. Rajkumar and Others vs. The by a Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad and others^. 6. Therefore, in the light of the Judgment of this Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; i) The Impugned Notice shall be treated as Show Cause Notice; and ii) The Petitioner has to submit an explanation along with the documents to the Respondent Authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order; and necessary AIR 1992 AP 143 4 tf iii) On receipt of the explanation from the Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a further period of Eight (08) weeks. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEt^TON^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To jAn.»h.p„„ 2. The Municipal Corporation, 3. One CC to Sri P Narasimhulu Advocate Muncipal Admn Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies [OPUC] and Urban Dev, High Court of TF v' HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12419 of 2025 i'X' 2 9 MAY 2025 V mis 50 V'A- "V -'IT.jr.-STFSf DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS