APHC010285002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16951 OF 2022 Between: Kurakula Srinivasa Rao,, S/o Late Suryanarayana, Aged 44 Occ: Business, R/o Door No. 16-15-52, 10th Cross Road, Gujarathipeta Post, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. years, P.N.Colony, ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. 3. Town Planning Officer, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. 4. Assistant City Planner, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation Town, Srikakulam District. Urban Development Srikakulam ...Respondents 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.157417/2021- G1, dt 25.02.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent which is served to petitioner's vendor Gorusu Kishore, S/o G.Kamaraju through registered post on 21.05.2022 thereby cancelled BPS Plan Regularization proceedings in , BPS/SRI/16/0335115, dt. 30.08.2017 with respect to petitioner's RCC residential house bearing Door No. 16-15-52 having Assessment No 1085023560 situated in an extent of 295.55 square yards in Survey No. 100/1 situated in 10th Cross Road, P.N.Colony, Gujarathipeta Post, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District without considering the explanation dt. 20.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner for the show cause notice dt. 15.02.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and without passing reasoned order as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 25.02.2021 as illegal and direct the respondents not to demolish my residential house and also not to evict me from my said house. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 suspend the operation of proceedings in Rc.No.157417/2021-G1 25.02.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish my residential house bearing Door No. 16-15- 52 having Assessment No: 1085023560 situated in an extent of 295.55 square yards in Survey No. 100/1 situated in 10th Cross Road, P.N.Colony, Gujarathipeta Post, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District and also interfere with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of my said residential house, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. dt. not to ...Petitioner/Respondent No. 2 AND Kurakula Srinivasa Rao,, S/o Late Suryanarayana, Aged 44 Occ; Business, R/o Door No. 16-15-52, 10th Cross Road, P.N.Colony, Gujarathipeta Post, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. years ...Petitioner/Respondent State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. Town Planning Officer, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. Assistant City Planner, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. 1. 2. 3. ...Respondent/Respondents No. 1,3 and 4 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 vacate the interim orders in lA No.1 of 2022 in WP No. 16951 of 2022 dt. 20- 06-2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI M KRISHNA RAO SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following order: APHC010285002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16951/2022 Between: 1.KURAKULA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0 DOOR NO.16-15-52, 10TH CROSS ROAD TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. P.N.COLONY, GUJARATHIPETA POST, SRIKAKULAM ...PETITIONER AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT, 2.SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. PLANNER, SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4.ASSISTANT CITY ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 l-M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ' URBAN DEV ) 2.GP FORMUNCIPAL ADMN The Court made the following; 3 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2021, whereby the 2 BPS/SRI/16/0335115. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 295.55 square yards through a registered sale deed dated 01.06.2019. The petitioner purchased the said land along with the building constructed thereon. It is further submitted that the vendor of the petitioner had constructed the building and subsequently regularized the deviations by applying under the Building Penalization Scheme (BPS). The 2"'^ respondent approved the said deviations and granted BPS regularization proceedings, which were issued on 30.08.2017. nd respondent cancelled BPS Plan No. It is submitted that after a lapse of four years, the 2^’^ respondent has issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the BPS granted to the building could not be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner, having purchased the plot in Sy. No. 100/1 was in occupation of land in Sy. No. 100/2. In this regard, the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 368/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking the relief of permanent injunction and also referred to the show cause notice and the 2. correspondence made by the petitioner in that regard. It is also submitted that the 2"'‘ respondent, without any basis, has determined the petitioner to be in occupation of land in Sy. No. 100/2. It is submitted that the 2"^^ respondent could not have arrived at such a conclusion without conducting a proper survey and without notifying the petitioner about the conduct of such survey. 3. It is also submitted that the suit and the attention of this was decreed vide order dated Hon ble Court is drawn to the Additional Civii Judge (Junior Division), Snkakulam, wherein it was observed that the 15.04.2025 observations made by the learned Prohibition & Excise Court, defendant, i.e., the 2 { nd respondent, did not adduce any evidence except for mere pleadings. On the A16, which have clinchingly proved the contrary, the petitioner had marked Exhibits A1 to case of the petitioner. 4. The learned Standing Counsel that a detailed counter initiated only after it appearing for the 2"<^ respondent submits was filed, and that the cancellation proceedings were was ascertained that the petitioner an odd bit of land falling under Survey No. was in occupation of 100/2. It is submitted that there about 13 vacant plots and eight odd bits in the layout, and the are petitioner is in occupation of one such odd bit. It is further submitted that the odd bits gifted to the 2 were nd respondent by Sri Rama Krishna, the Government cooperative House Building Society, and that the 2- respondent is the owner property, which would be used by the 2 Employees’ of the said nd respondent for its purposes. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner, from one G. Kishore, 2"^ respondent-corporation had i house and also assessed the 2"^' respondent-corporation has the being the purchaser of the property vendor, as the issued permissions for the construction acted upon the misrepresentation of the of the property for taxes. It is further submitted that the power to take collective measures when it 5 is brought to its notice that the petitioner is in occupation of property belonging to the 2’^'^ respondent-corporation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. Perused the record and also perused the copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.368/2021. Along with the counter, the 2"^ respondent has submitted a copy of the show cause notice and a copy of the impugned proceedings. However, there is no material on record to determine or accept the contention of the 2"'^ respondent that the petitioner is in possession of, or has illegally occupied, the land in Survey No. 100/1. It is also evident that the 2""^ respondent did not 8. submit any document before the trial court when O.S. No. 368 of 2021 was tried on merits. In the absence of any supporting documents, the mere pleadings of the 2"'^ respondent alleging that the petitioner is in occupation of land belonging to the Municipality cannot sustain the security of law. That apart, it is not in dispute that the 2"^* respondent granted valid 9. permission for constructing the building and subsequently regularized the deviations under the BPS scheme, issuing the proceedings for regularization. It is also equally not in dispute that the property was assessed for taxes by the 2^^ respondent, and the petitioner has been paying municipal taxes for the said building. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings were definitely issued without application of mind and without any basis. On these 6 grounds, this Court is of the are deserves to be set aside. considered view that the iimpugned proceedings 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U. 3RSDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// n OFFICER ECTI To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. 3. The Town Planning Officer, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. 4. The Assistant City Planner, Srikakulam Municipal Corporation, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. 5. One CC to Sri. Srinivas Ambati Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. M Krishna Rao SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Municipal admin and Urban Dev High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies gsc HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16951 OF 2022 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS