APHC010257512025 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: 13121/2025 Between: Mudunuri Saraswathi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 13121/2025 ORDER: The above writ petition is filed to questioning the confirmation order dated 05.05.2025 vide Notice No.U.C.No.01/WPRS-31/2025 issued under Section 228(3) of APM Act, 1965 and under 89(3) of APMR & UDA Act, 2016. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of 0.16 ¼ cents in RS.No.87/9, situated at Rayalam Revenue Village, Komarada Road, within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality, West Godavari District. The said property was acquired by the petitioner having succeeded the same through a Registered Will Deed No.59/2008 dated 02.06.2008, executed by her husband. It is also stated that the husband of the petitioner had purchased the same from his vendors vide Registered Sale Deed Nos.1758 of 1981, dated 10.06.1981 and 3788 of 1982, dated 17.11.1982. 3. While so, a construction was made in the said premises and since the construction was made without obtaining municipal permission, a provisional notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.03.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the site falls part of 80 feet wide road as per Bhimavaram master plan and the said property is falling in the road affected area of the sanctioned plan which was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.9 MA & UD dated 17.01.2024. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had constructed AC Roof Sheet Shed without obtaining permission from the respondent authorities. 3 4. In the explanation thereto, the petitioner submitted that the structure is only temporary shed, it is used for the purpose of godown and that is there is no hindrance or objection to anybody. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that they are ready to pay the required regularization and penalization charges for the above said shed and there is no necessity to remove the temporary shed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the master plan referred in the provisional notice is only in ideal scenario and the respondent authorities even if they want to implement 80 feet road as contemplated under the master plan have to acquire the property of the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot deny the property merely because the same falls under 80 feet road. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that building permission was not sought before construction, however, submits that the petitioner would be making an application for approval of building plan post-facto as contemplated under 455(A) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 7. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the structure in question cannot be termed to be temporary structure as a permanent structure with iron roof shed were raised and therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered. 4 8. Taking into consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the pinion that the to dispose of the writ petitioner with the following directions: a) The petitioner shall submit a building plan to the respondent authorities within a period of four (04) weeks as per the procedure contemplated under Andhra Pradesh Buildings Rules, 2017. b) On receipt of such plan, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same under Section Post-facto 455(A) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. c) The directions given by the respondent authorities pursuant to the consideration preferred above shall be carried out by the petitioner within the time specified. d) Meanwhile, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date 9. 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 5 187 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 13121/2025 DATE: 09.05.2025 SNI