APHC010296022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 14744 OF 2024 Between: Kanchi Ramu, S/o. K.Venkatasubbaiah, Aged about 53 years, R/o 19-13/105- K/150/A, Mahalakshmi Residency, Narayanapuram, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Tirupati Urban,Tirupati District. 3. T Gunashekar Reddy, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 57 years, R/o D.No. 12-4-377, Bandia Street, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Notice No.OI/WPRS-06/TPBO-II/acP-I Dt 09-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the above Notice Dt 09-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay Notice‘No.01/WPRS-06/TPBO- ll/ACP-l Dt 09-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: T Gunashekar Reddy, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 57 R/o D years .No. 12-4-377, Bandia Street, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Kanchi Ramu, S/o. K.Venkatasubbaiah, Aged about 53 years, R/o 19- 13/105-K/150/A, Mahalakshmi Residency, Narayanapuram, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District. ... Respondent/Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Tirupati Urban,Tirupati District. 2. 3. ...Respondents/ Respondents 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 order dt. 12-07-2024 in lA. No. 1 of 2024 in WP. No. 14744 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Kanchi Ramu, S/o. K.Venkatasubbaiah, Aged about 53 years, R/o 19- 13/105-K/150/A, Mahalakshmi Residency, Narayanapuram, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District. ... Respondent/Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. T Gunashekar Reddy, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 57 years, R/o D.No. 12-4-377, Bandia Street, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...Respondents/ Respondents 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 order dt. 12-07-2024 lA. No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.14744 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI J DILEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following order: APHC010296022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 14744/2024 Between: 1.KANCHI RAMU„ S/0. K.VENKATASUBBAIAH. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/0 19-13/105-K/150/A, RESIDENCY, NARAYANAPURAM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. MAHALAKSHMI TIRUPATI URBAN, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THETIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI URBAN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3.T GUNASHEKAR REDDY, S/0 LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 12-4-377, BANDIA STREET, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other 2 appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Notice N0.OIAA/PRS- 06/TPBO-II/ACP-I Dt 09-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the above Notice Dt.09-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass such other order. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay Notice N0.OIAA/PRS-O6/T PBO- ll/ACP-l, Dt.09-07-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 order dt. 12-07-2024 in IA.N0.I of 2024 in WP. No. 14744 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost and pass such other order. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the order dt. 12-07-2024 lA.No.l of 2024 in W.P.No.14744 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost and pass such other order. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 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 grant leave to file the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in WP.No.14744 of 2024with costs and pass ! praying that in the 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.JDILEEP KUMAR 2.PASALA PONNA RAO 3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITIQNI No.14744 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing impugned Notice No.01A/\/PRS-06/TPBO- ll/ACP-l, dated 09.07.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows; The father of the Petitioner had purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No.1 situated at Tirupati Revenue Village vide registered Sale Deed bearing document No.423/1980. After purchase, said land was sub-divided as Sy.No.1/B. During his life time, the Petitioner’s father had been cultivating and raising crops in the subject land. It is further submitted that for keeping the cattle and agriculture produce, temporary sheds and godown were installed. The sheds were assessed to property tax and assigned D.No.19-3-1/C. It is submitted that after demise of his father, the Petitioner and 3. other family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, Respondent No.2 issued a special notice under Section 220(2) of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and levied penalty of Rs.57,065/- for half year tax for un-authorised 2 construction and the Petitioner is paying property tax regularly. . In the year 2003, a part of the sheds in the subject property was collapsed due to heavy winds and rains and the Petitioner intimated the same to Respondent No.2. 4. While so, basing on the complaint given by Respondent No.3 Respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 06.03.2024 to the Petitioner under Section 461 of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to stop construction in the subject property as the same in dispute and with regard the same, W.P.No.32649 of 2023 is filed before this Court and the same is pending. The Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said notice along with the relevant documents on 26.03.2024. 5. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued another notice under Section 636 of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Section 89(4) of the A.P.M.R.U.D.A. Act, 2016 to remove the un-authorised constructions without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and the same was served to the Petitioner on 09.07.2024. In the said notice, it was stated that the actual built-up area of the un-authorized construction differs from the site area of 9800 square feet. 3 6. Further, it is stated that the impugned notice is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the notice issued on 06.03.2024 to which the Petitioner had submitted explanation remain un-decided. It is further contended that Respondent No.3 is no way concerned with the subject property as the Petitioner’s father had purchased the schedule property with specific boundaries from lawful vendors namely Tondamanati Venkatesamreddy and his son Ramachandra Reddy. 7. It is also stated that the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati declared the title and granted permanent injunction in respect of the above subject matter in favour of the Petitioner’s father in O.S.No.1 of 2005. Basing on the representation given by Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 initiated proceedings against the Petitioner and questioning the same the Petitioner filed W.P.No.32649 of 2023. It is further stated that this Court after satisfying with the prima facie case of the Petitioner has stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 18.12.2023. Therefore, the plea of the Petitioner is that there is no justification in issuing the impugned proceedings as W.P.No.32649 of 2023 is pending before this Court. 4 8. Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit stating that the Petitioner did not take any permission for construction of sheds as required under A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the construction was treated as un-authorized vide notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 461 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 9. It is further stated that the Petitioner had got assessment only for two sheds, but had started construction of seven new sheds claiming very same door number and he did not get any permission for construction. Though the Town Planning staff have inspected and noticed that the Petitioner had tried to stop the constructions of sheds. the Petitioner obstructed the duties of the Town Planning staff and vehemently proceeded with the construction work. It was in that context, the notice dated 06.03.2024 was issued under Section 461 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 10. It is further stated that Respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.7858 of 2024 before this Court for preventing illegal constructions being made by the Petitioner and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-Municipality to act on the complaint given by Respondent No.3. It is further mentioned that there is no Court order restraining the 5 Respondent-Corporation not to interfere with the un-authorized constructions being made by the Petitioner. In the Counter Affidavit by Respondent No.3, it is stated that the Petitioner had made construction in violation of the A.P. Building 11. Rules, 2017 and the documents including the property tax receipts are created just for suit convenience. It is stated that Respondent No.3 is the absolute owner of the property and had traced the right to the property from the time of Kaikala Narayana Reddy as per the Village Accounts. It is also stated in the Mutation Proceedings of the Tahsildar 12. issued on 14.12.2018 in D.Dis.A/260/2018 and pursuant to the same the revenue records stand in the name of Respondent No.3 to an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.1 and an extent of Ac.1.82 cents in Sy.No.2. It is further stated that the Petitioner had created fake F.M.B and other sub-divisions and illegally obtained T.D.R bonds. It is also stated that the building permission sought by the 13. Petitioner was kept in abeyance in view of the objections of the Petitioner and the Petitioner and his family members had created documents i.e. Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2756/2023, dated 24.05.2023 and some other documents bearing document 6 Nos. 19098/2024 and 19099/2024, dated 18.03.2024 after disposal of the Revision before the Joint Collector, Tirupati to create further litigation. 14. Respondent No.3 in substance submits that there is no building permission in favour of the Petitioner for proceeding with the impugned construction and in the absence of any building permission the impugned notice cannot be faulted with. There is no denial of the fact by Respondent No.2 that no prior notice was issued before issuing the notice dated 09.07.2024 under Section 636 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 15. In that view the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The impugned notice issued by Respondent No.2 shall be treated as show-cause notice. (ii) The Petitioner is directed to submit his explanation to the notice dated 09.07.2024 issued by Respondent No.2 within a period of four (4) weeks from today; and (iii) The Respondent authorities shall consider the explanation submitted by the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. - — >> 7 (iv) The un-official Respondent No.3 is entitled to raise his objections before the concerned authority within a period of four (4) weeks from today. (v) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 16. Sdl- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2'. The Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District. 3. One CC to Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri J Dileep Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT 7. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 14744 OF 2024 Cj O 0 5 AUG 20?5 S ^ ^ Current Section ^ Co. DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS