APHC010253412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12649/2025 Between: 1. L.PAIDAM NAIDU, S/O VENKATA KUMAR SWAMY NAIDU, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7-39, A KODURU VILLAGE, K KOTAPADU MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 2. SEERAMREDDY RAMU NAIDU, S/O NARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O NARSIPATNAM TOWN, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3. KEDARISETTY MAHESH, S/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O NARSIPATNAM TOWN, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT) VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, NARSIPATNAM REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE THAHSILDHAR, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI 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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 2 action of the 2nd respondent in directing the petitioners to stop Building Construction Activity immediately pursuant to the notice for cancellation of building permit issued vide BA.N0.1136/0065/B/NAR/BAM/2024, through notice in ROC.No. SWO/1136/2025/0001 dated 30-04-2025 is highly illegal, arbitrary, without power or Jurisdiction and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, apart from violation of Articles 14, 300-A of Constitution of India, and Set-aside the same, consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the construction activity under taken by the petitioners herein pursuant to the building permission issued vide BA.N0.1136/0065/B/NAR/BAM/2024, dated 04-09-2024 and to pass IA 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the construction activity under taken by the petitioners herein pursuant to the building permission issued vide BA.N0.1136/0065/B/NAR/BAM/2024, dated 04-09-2024 by suspending the notice vide ROC.No. SWO/1136/2025/0001 dated 30-04-2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel Municipalities 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 WRIT PETITION NO: 14331/2025 Between: 1. L PAIDAM NAIDU, S/O VENKATA KUMAR SWAMY NAIDU, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7-39, A KODURU VILLAGE, K. KOTAPADU MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 2. SEERAMREDDY RAMU NAIDU, S/O NARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O NARSIPATNAM TOWN, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3. KEDARISETTY MAHESH, S/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O NARSIPATNAM TOWN, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. SEERAMREDDI GOVINDU, S/O LATE ATCHIBABU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O THAMARAM VILLAGE MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE NARSIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, NARSIPATNAM, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE THAHSILDHAR, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL ANAKAPALLI 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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the building Permit vide BA No. 1136/0065/ B/NAR/BAM/2024, dated 04.09.2024 issued in 4 favour of the petitioners for construction of stilt G 2 upper floors commercial building in Sy.No.44/4A in premises No.1-1-140 through proceedings ROC No.1169/2025/G1, dated 8.5.2025 is highly illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set aside the same and pass IA 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 For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of proceedings in ROC NO.1169/2025/G1, dated 8.5.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, by allowing the petitioners No.1 to 3 to carry the construction activity on the site exclusive belongs to them, pursuant to the building Permit vide BA No.1136/0065/B/NAR/BAM/2024, 04.09.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.12649 of 2025 & 14331 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: 1. W.P.No.12649 of 2025 is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in directing the Petitioners to stop building construction activity immediately pursuant to the Notice dated 04.09.2024 for cancellation of building permit issued vide B.A.No.1136/0065/B/NAR/BAM/2024 through Notice in ROC.No.SWO/1136/2025/0001, dated 30.04.2025, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. W.P.No.14331 of 2025 is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in cancelling the building permit vide B.A.No.1136/0065/B/NAR/BAM/2024, dated 04.09.2024 issued in favour of the Petitioners for construction of Stilt and G+2 upper floors commercial building in Sy.No.44/4A in premises No.1-1-140 through Proceedings ROC.No.1169/G1, dated 08.05.2025, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. As both the cases are interrelated, a Common Order is being passed. 6 4. W.P.No.12649 of 2025 is taken as lead case for description of the parties and for narration of facts. 5. The facts leading to filing of W.P.No.12649 of 2025 are as follows:- The Petitioners 1 to 3 herein along with one Sri Seeramreddy Govindu had jointly purchased an extent of 295.01 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.44/4a of Baligattam Village within the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2-Municipality vide registered Sale Deed bearing document No.133/2019, dated 09.01.2019 from its original owner Sri M. Jagadeeswara Rao. It is contended that pursuant to the same, on 27.03.2019 the subject property was partitioned into four equal shares and an extent of 73.75 Sq. Yards fell to the share of each individual. While so, Respondent No.2-Municipality acquired an extent of 49.52 Sq. Yards out of 73.75 Sq. Yards for road widening from the property of Seeramreddy Govindu. 6. While so, the Petitioners herein including Seeramreddy Govindu made an application through online for construction of commercial building for G + 2 and permission was accorded vide B.A.No.1136/ 0065/ B/ NAR/ BAM/ 2024, dated 04.09.2024 and pursuant thereto, the Petitioners undertook the construction activity 7 without any deviation. While so, the impugned notice dated 30.04.2025 was issued calling upon the Petitioners to stop proceeding with construction as there are orders of attachment in Cr.No.03/RCA-ACB/VSP/2020 issued by the III Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. 7. The ACB Case was filed against one Seeramreddy Govindu i.e. Petitioner No.4 in W.P.No.14331 of 2025, who while working as Field Assistant/Clerk, PACS, Thamaram had acquired the subject properties along with host of other properties and therefore a case was registered for offence under Section 13(2) R/w Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The subject property of an extent of 295.01 Sq. Yards was said to have been purchased along with 3 others vide document No.133 of 2019, dated 10.01.2019. The disproportionate assets were said to be Rs.1,71,07,624/-. 8. Subsequent to the notice, dated 30.04.2020 proposing to cancel building permission, the Respondent authorities vide proceedings dated 08.05.2025 cancelled the building permission issued vide B.A.No.1136/0065/B/NAR/BAM/2024, dated 04.09.2024. 9. Though, the Writ Petitions were filed raising various grounds, but the counsel for the Petitioners in the light of attachment orders 8 would submit that the attachment orders are only to ensure that no sale is effected creating third party right pending the criminal case and as the order of attachment was only to the extent of 1/4th share of Seeramreddy Govindu i.e. Petitioner No.4 in W.P.No.14331 of 2025 and right of Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to enjoy the property cannot be denied. 10. As no orders of attachment were enclosed to the impugned notice and with both expressing their mobility to produce the order, this Court on 20.06.2025 sought Registry to verify whether any attachment orders have been passed in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2021 in Cr.No.03/RCA-ACB/VSP/2020 pending before the III Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam by the date of next hearing. A report was submitted to the Registry on 24.06.2025 by the III Additional District Judge- cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam enclosing docket order dated 04.07.2022 making the interim order of attachment dated 05.07.2021 absolute, wherein it is stated that an order was passed against Seeramreddy Govindu. 11. It is further submitted that all the Petitioners in W.P.No.14331 of 2025 i.e. joint owners of the subject property including the sole accused Seeramreddy Govindu i.e. Petitioner No.4 had filed 9 undertaking Affidavits before this Court separately vide USR Nos.67401/2025, 67383/2025, 67400/2025 and 66519/2025 respectively stating that they will not alienate their portion of the property to the third parties, which is under attachment and they would take care of the interests of the Respondent-State. 12. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the impugned orders were passed only on account of the attachment orders and the same cannot be followed. 13. Heard the respective counsels. 14. The order of attachment by the Criminal Court was in exercise of power under Section 18(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The attachment was said to be to the extent of share of Petitioner No.4 i.e. Seeramreddy Gonvidu, the sole accused in the criminal case as per the letter issued by the III Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam on 24.06.2025 as referred above. The Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under; “18A. Provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to apply to attachment under this Act. – (1) Save as otherwise provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 10 1944 (Ord.38 of 1944) shall, as far as may be, apply to the attachment, administration of attached property and execution of order of attachment or confiscation of money or property procured by means of an offence under this Act. (2) For the purposes of this Act, the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord. 38 of 1944) shall have effect, subject to the modification that the references to "District Judge" shall be construed as references to "Special Judge". 15. As per the above provision, the provision of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance (hereinafter called ‘Ordinance’) issued vide Ordinance No.38 of 1944 shall apply subject to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022. The procedure for attachment under the Ordinance is akin to Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code and attachment is ordered where there is likelihood of transferring the property and frustrating the proceedings. 16. In this case, Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are not arrayed as accused along with Petitioner No.4 have submitted affidavits that the property in question would not be alienated till the disposal of the Criminal case against Petitioner No.4. The undertaking affidavits would suffice the cause of prosecution. 11 17. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions; (i) Taking into consideration the undertaking Affidavits filed by the Petitioners not to create any third party rights pending further orders from the Criminal Court, the impugned orders issued vide ROC.No.SWO/1136/2025/0001, dated 30.04.2025 and ROC.No.1169/ G1, dated 08.05.2025, dated 08.05.2025 are set-aside; (ii) In the event the subject building is given on lease to any third party, the share of Petitioner No.4 shall be informed to the Criminal Court and the share of Petitioner No.4 i.e. Seeramreddy Govindu be deposited in the Criminal Court i.e. III Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.03/RCA-ACB/VSP/2020 subject to further orders passed by the Criminal Court; (iii) No order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 10.07.2025 Note: Mark a copy to the III Additional District Judge-cum- Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. (B/o) IS 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.12649 of 2025 & 14331 of 2025 Date: 10.07.2025 Note: Mark a copy to the III Additional District Judge-cum- Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. (B/o) IS