APHC010257902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12908/2025 Between: 1. Y RAMA KRISHNA SASTRY, S/O. LATE Y VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM MALE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RIO. D. NO. 15, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, BESANT ROAD, ROYA PETTAH, CHENNAI, REP. BY GPA HOLDER MR. VEMULURI NAGA BHUSHANAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI 2. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CANAL ROAD, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER II, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 4. M/S SIVA PARVATHI APPARELS, D. NO. 27-1-116, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR E SARVESWARA RAO S/O. LATE PEDDA CHINNAYYA 5. SHARMA SPORTS, D. NO. 27-1-116, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR PAVAN KUMAR SHARMA S/O. LATE SHYAM SUNDAR SHARMA 6. MADHU CREATIONS, D. NO. 27-1-117/2, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR A SIVA RAMA KRISHNA S/O. GOPI CHANDRA 7. SARAVANA TEXTILES, D. NO. 27-1-119, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR D SIVANAGENDRAM S/O. SANGAMESWARA RAO ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of WRIT OF WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned Show Cause Notice in Rc. G2- 103116/2025 Dt 24.02.2025 issued by the 3rdRespondent and the consequential proceedings vide Notice in Rc. G2-103116/2025 Dt. 10.03.2025 issued by the 2nd as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of executive power, violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 apart from contrary to Principles of Natural Justice and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent not to revoke the Building Permit granted in favour of Petitioner vide Building Permit Order in B.A. No. 1073/0606/B/VMC/GOV/2023 Dt. 29.07.2024 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 pleased to STAY the impugned proceedings vide Notice in Rc. G2-103116/2025 Dt. 10.03.2025 issued by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents pending disposal of the present Writ Petition or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. N ASHWANI KUMAR 3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC APHC010136882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6920/2025 Between: 1. M/S.SIVA PARVATHI APPARELS,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, EMMADISETTY SARVESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE PEDDA CHINNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D. NO 27-1-116, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. 2. SHARMA SPORTS,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PAVAN KUMAR SHARMA, S/O. LATE. SHYAM SUNDAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. D. NO 27-1-117, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 3. MADHU CREATIONS,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, ADDAGALLA SIVA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. GOPI CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. D. NO 27-1-117/2, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. 4. SARAVANA TEXTILES,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DOGIPARTHY SIVANAGENDRAM S/O SANGAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. D. NO 27-1-119, ELURU ROAD, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRASTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNERLL, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NTR DISTRICT. 4. Y RAMA KRISHNA SASTRY, , S/O Y. VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 15, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, BESENT ROAD, RAYAPET, CHANNAI, TAMILNADU STATE ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or orders more particuraly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents No. 3 in issuing the Notice in Rc. G2- 103116/2025 dated 10.03.2025 (received on 12.03.2025) to the petitioners and the 4th respondent directing to remove the shops situated in Door No. 27-1-111, Eluru Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada, as contrary to Section 106, 108 and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the Notice in Rc. G2-103116/2025 dated 10.03.2025 (received on 12.03.2025), issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners and the 4th respondent and to pass such 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 suspend the Notice in Rc. G2- 103116/2025 dated 10.03.2025 (received on 12.03.2025) issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners and the 4th respondent by directing WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyement of the Eluru Road, 13. petitioners shops situated in Door No. 27-1-111 Governorpet, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such IA 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of order in W.P No. 6920 of 2025 and to pass IA 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 18.03.2025 in IA.No.1 of 2025 in WP.No.6920 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs and pass IA NO: 4 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 grant leave to file Additional Counter Affidavit by the 4rt Respondent herein or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMAYAMANTHULA SRIKANTH 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC The Court made the following: WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 COMMON ORDER : 1. WP.No.12908 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration of show cause notice dated 24.02.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and the consequential proceedings vide notice in Rc.No.G2-103116/2025, dated 10.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction to the 2nd respondent not to revoke the building permission is also sought. 2. WP.No.6920 of 2025 is filed by the tenants of the writ petitioner in WP.No.12908 of 2025 and respondent No.4 in the present writ petition. The petitioners have sought a declaration of the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the notice in Rc.No.G2- 103116/2025, dated 10.03.2025 to the petitioners and the 4th respondent with a direction to remove the shops situated in D.No.27-1-111, Besant Road and Mudda Subbaiah Street Corner, Eluru Road, Vijayawada. 3. As the order dated 10.03.2025 is under challenge in both the writ petitions, both the writ petitions can be disposed off by a common order. For the sake of brevity petitioner in WP.No.12908 WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 of 2025 shall be referred to as landlord and petitioners in WP.No.6920 of 2025 are referred to as tenants. 4. Sri.Y.V.Ravi Prasdad, learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord submits that the landlord owns of land admeasuring 2605.28 Square yards of land situated at D.No.27-1-111, Besant Road and Mudda Subbaiah Street Corner, Eluru Road, Vijayawada. It is also submitted that the petitioner inherited the property along with an old building which also had several shops. The age of the building was more than 100 years and several shops were given on lease to various tenants including the petitioners in WP.No.6920 of 2025. 5. It is submitted that over a period of time there was change in tenancy and some tenants sublet the premises without intervention of landlord. The landlord intended to construct a shopping complex by demolishing the old building which was in a dilapidated condition. On request of the landlord several occupants vacated the premises. The tenants also promised to vacate the premises. 6. The landlord intended to construct a new shopping complex and applied for building permission. As a portion of the land was required for road widening, the landlord executed two registered gift deeds bearing Doc.No.4316/2023 and 4317/2023, dated WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 25.03.2023 an extent of 188.7 square yards was gifted for public purposes in favour of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (herein after be referred as ‘VMC’). 7. The VMC accorded permission for construction of Cellar + Ground floor + 3 upper floors. Thereafter, the landlord constructed started the construction. As things stood thus, VMC issued a notice dated 24.02.2025 directing the landlord and the tenants to show cause as to why the structures standing in the road affected area should not be pull down. 8. It is also submitted that the tenants approached the landlord and assured to vacate the premises as and when need arises for road widening. A detailed explanation was submitted by the landlord and tenants, however the VMC passed the impugned proceedings dated 10.03.2025 calling upon the landlord to pull down the structures standing over the road affected portion within a period of seven days, failing which, the building permission would be revoked. 9. Learned senior counsel for the landlord submits that there is no justification in issuing such a notice and that once the property has been gifted to the VMC, it is their look out to retain it or demolish it. It is also submitted that the officers of the VMC have conducted the site inspection after issuing the permission. It is WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 also submitted that VMC instead of taking over the property gifted to them has resorted to issuance of a frivolous notice. It is also submitted that the tenants have categorically gave in writing to the VMC that they would handover the possession of the property as and when desired by VMC. 10. It is also submitted that the VMC cannot be justified in issuing the impugned proceedings and it is the look out of VMC to deal with the property over which right, title and interest is conveyed by the landlord in their favour. 11. Learned counsel for the tenants submits that the landlord has executed a gift deed without the knowledge of the tenants and that they were unaware of the gift deeds until receipt of notices from the VMC. It is also submitted that the tenants were paying rents to the landlords till February, 2025. It is also submitted that the tenants are assessed for taxes and are also having valid trade license and registration certificates. 12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the tenants that VMC could not have been issued the impugned proceedings without granting an opportunity to the tenants and without considering the explanation as submitted by the tenants. It is submitted that the tenants would be displaced from their WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 business premises which would endanger the livelihood of the tenants. 13. Learned standing counsel appearing for VMC submits that the Commissioner is empowered to cancel the permission under Section 450 of the Municipal Corporation Act, on the ground of misrepresentation if any found after grant of permission. It is submitted that the landlord has executed gift deeds by projecting the property as a vacant land. It is submitted that the landlord was aware of the occupancy of the property by the tenants which was gifted to VMC as if the same was a vacant land. 14. It is submitted that the landlord has also utilized the TDR bonds which were issued by the VMC for having gifted the road affected portion of land. It is also submitted that the landlord ought to have shown equity and fairness. On the contrary the landlord is guilty of suppression of facts and as such the permission granted was rightly sought to be revoked. 15. The learned counsel for the tenants submits that the tenants cannot be thrown out of their shops while the tenancy is in subsisting. It is submitted that the procedure under Section 106 would have to be followed for evicting the tenants. It is submitted that neither the landlord nor the VMC can evict the tenants WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 without following the due process of law under the Transfer of Property Act. 16. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord and the learned counsel appearing for the tenants and the learned standing counsel appearing for VMC. Perused the material available on record. 17. The impugned proceedings are issued by VMC directing the landlord to pull down the structures which are falling in the road affected portions failing which, permission sanctioned on 29.07.2024 will be revoked by treating that the building permission was obtained with fraud and material misrepresentation besides taking further action for removing the structures departmentally with costs of removal be debited to the account of the landlord. 18. The show cause notice dated 24.02.2025 issued to the landlord and the tenants, there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud. The show cause notice would only indicate that an explanation is sought as to why the structures standing in the road side should not be pull down and the site covered under the gift deeds be not reclaimed. However, the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Assistant City Planner lenr from the WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 office of Commissioner, VMC referred to the alleged fraud and material representation by the landlord. 19. The tenants could not produce any documents to establish their tenancy rights while submitting their explanation to the show cause notice to VMC. It is pertinent to note that the tenants have also not produced any document to establish their tenancy rights even before this Court. 20. VMC has accorded permission after having considered the building application submitted by the landlord. The officers of VMC would definitely visit the premises in terms of Rule 3 (22) (c) of Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 reads as follows c) Post Verification of Building Permissions: After sanction of the Building Permissions through the Online Building Permission Management System, the respective Local Authorities, Competent Authority and Sanctioning Authority who shall examine and scrutinize the Building Permissions as per the categories given below in detail and verify the compliance of the provisions of the land uses as per the Master Plans/General Town Planning Schemes, layouts, the relevant rules and regulations as applicable and wherever there has been any false statement, misrepresentation of material facts in the application on which the building permission was sanctioned is invalid and shall be deemed to be cancelled. The concerned authority shall be entitled to take appropriate action against such Licensed Technical Personnel any person whoever is responsible and also against such construction. Till such time any application filed by concerned LTP/Applicant shall not be accepted without specific approval from Competent Authority. WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 (i) Local Authorities shall undertake post verification of all building permissions issued in their respective jurisdiction. (ii) Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority [APCRDA]/Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MRDA)/Urban Development Authority (UDA)/IALA Areas: In case of areas falling under the jurisdiction of APCRDA/MRDA/UDA/IALA, post verification of building permissions shall be done as per the delegation of powers and as per the categories permissible in normal course as per zoning regulations issued by the concerned APCRDA/MRDA/UDA/IALA from time to time. (iii) Areas not covered under APCRDA/MRDA/UDA/IALA Areas: 1) The concerned Regional Deputy Director of Town & Country Planning shall undertake post verification of building permissions which are having site area of above 300sq.m and up to 1000sq.m where the proposed activity is permissible in normal course as per Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. 2) The Director of Town & Country Planning or his representative shall undertake post verification of building permissions which area having the site area above 1000sq.m where the proposed activity is permissible in normal course as per Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. 21. The officers of VMC would have noticed the existing structures on the road affected portion of land. There was no communication or correspondence from the VMC regarding the existing structures soon after the inspection of the building by the officers. This would go to show that VMC was aware of the existing structures on the portion of land gifted to the VMC for public purposes by the landlord. WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 22. The counter submitted by VMC would state that there is a typographical error in the gift deed with regard to the property gifted is inadvertently referred to as vacant land. To clarify the same, this Court verified with the standing counsel for VMC as to the procedure adopted for registering of gift deeds of the property required for public purposes. The learned standing counsel has informed that the gift deeds executed for such purposes are standard format deeds. 23. On a further query as to whether only vacant land is required to be gifted to the VMC which is required for public purposes. It is informed that the area so required shall be surrendered to the authority by the owner of land through a registered gift deed. The area so required would include any existing structures. 24. The allegation of VMC regarding the alleged misrepresentation and playing fraud for obtaining building permission is unfounded on the facts of this case. It is equally pertinent to mention that the tenants could not submit any document before the VMC to claim any equity as tenants. In such circumstances, the petitioners of WP.No.6920 of 2025 cannot maintain the writ petition after having executed a letter of assurance to VMC duly assuring of vacating the premises as and when required for the road widening purposes. WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 25. During pendency of the writ petitions, the landlord and the tenants tried to enter into a compromise on mutual agreed terms, however, the 2nd petitioner in WP.No.6920 of 2025 did not endorse on the agreed terms of settlement. A joint compromise memo is filed on 22.07.2025, however, the same is withdrawn by the parties for lack of consensus against them. 26. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that VMC cannot issue the impugned proceedings dated 10.03.2025 by holding out threats of revocation of the building permission. There is no malafide intention on part of the landlord in executing the gift deed for the road affected premises. Similarly, the landlord cannot be alleged of playing fraud or misrepresentation. 27. The VMC having acquired the right, title and interest over the extent of premises gifted by the landlord is free to deal with the said property in the manner deemed appropriate. The petitioners in WP.No.6920 of 2025 cannot hold the VMC for ransom and come in the way of road expansion which is undertaken for public purposes. However, it is for the tenants to approach the Competent Forum and claim any relief against the landlords if they feel are entitled for on merits. 28. Thus, the show cause notice dated 24.02.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and the consequential proceedings vide notice in WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 Rc.No.G2-103116/2025, dated 10.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent deserve to be set aside. 29. Accordingly, WP.No.12908 of 2025 is allowed and WP.No.6920 of 2025 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:22.09.2025 KGM WP.Nos.12908 and 6920 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.12908 and 6920 of 2025 Date: 22.09.2025 KGM