APHC010317262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICp AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 748 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07.05.2025 in W.P.No.lOSZCTof 2025 on the file of High Court.^ Between: Neelam Nagendra Prasad, S/o Naga Raju, Aged about 51 years, R/o D.No.2- 17-16/2, Santhinagar, Nidadavole Town, East Godavari District. it ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT 7 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Municipal Administration and Urban Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Nidadavole Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner East Godavari District. 3. The Town Planning Officer, Town Planning Section, Nidadavole Godavari District. 4. P. V. V. Satyanarayana, S/o Appa Rao, Aged about Business, R/o 541 MB, Kummara Street, HDFC Bank Town, East Godavari District. Secretary, Development Authority Nidadavole, East 60 years, Occ. Nidadavolu 5. Sheik Anwar Bhasha, S/o Late Bhasha, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Driver, R/o 543, Kummara Street, HDFC Bank, Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District. 6. Sheik Abdul Aziz, S/o Ismail, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Retired RTC Driver, R/o 7314, Big Masjid Street, Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS^ lA 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 to suspend the operation of order dated 07.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.10870 of 2025 by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in so far as directing the Petitioner to not give the premises to any 3’’^ parties pending disposal of the Writ Petition is concerned. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. SUBBA RAO FOR SRI AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent No.1:GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6:— The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010317262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-83 [3483] AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 748 of 2025 Neelam Nagendra Prasad ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant Sri N. Subba Rao appearing for Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities. Advocate for Respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 22nd July 2025 PC : We have gone through the order dated 07.05.2025 passed W.P.No.10870 of 2025, which is not a final order but interim in nature. in 2. The learned single Judge, while issuing directions, has ordered the appellant herein not to proceed with further construction and not to alter the premises in any manner as shown in the photographs filed along with the writ petition and also not to give the premises to any third parties pending disposal of the writ petition. The respondent authorities have also been asked to take note of the setbacks pointed in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner 2 f r and shall file an affidavit as to what is the exact setbacks on all four sides of the premises in question. These directions have been issued based upon the material that was available on record as also the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent authority that the construction was raised in gross violation of the building plan. 3. It appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent authority was that basement below ground had been constructed even when no such permission was granted and no such basement could have been constructed. Apart from this, admittedly, the building permission was granted only to raise three floors whereas the appellant has raised four floors. The petitioner, therefore, clearly seems to have thrown caution to the wind and raised construction on a false hope and premise that ultimately, he would get away with the construction in question which has been stalled by the respondents. 4. The fact that the petitioner had undertaken to demolish the top floor on his own is not the end of the matter inasmuch as the issue as to whether the requisite setbacks have been maintained by the petitioner while constructing the building in question is also an issue which is to be looked into by the official respondents and the status to be finally reflected in the counter affidavit. The matter is also been directed to be posted for consideration on 28.07.2025. 3 f Learned Senior Counsel urged that the direction issued by the learned single Judge be modified only to the extent that the petitioner be permitted to incorporate as a tenant a bank with whom there was an agreement entered into before the passing of the order. It is stated that on account of the failure the part of the appellant to make available premises in question as per the agreement, the bank is likely to initiate action to recover damages from the appellant which can be avoided. 5. on 6. In our opinion, the said request cannot be accepted at this stage when the matter has not been finally heard and decided by the learned single Judge. We cannot interfere with the order impugned inasmuch as incorporating a tenant in the premises, which may likely be held to be not in with the requisite setbacks, may ultimately warrant demolition which would lead to effecting third parties, and in the present case, the bank with whom the appellant is stated to have entered into an agreement. Only because an agreement is executed with the third party, the same would not justify the modification of the order impugned, which warrants no interference. consonance Learned counsel for the respondent authority undertakes to file the reply affidavit positively on or before the next date of hearing on which the parties agree that no adjournment will be sought by either of them for ensuring early disposal of the matter. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. 4 f’ Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- Wl.RAMESH EABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, Advocate [OPUC]_ One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT ^ Two CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. ssb % HIGH COURT DATED:22/07/2025 JUDGMENT WA No.748 OF 2025 0 5 AUG 2025 ^ yco^ t^^Qjrrent SectigflX^>^ DISMISSING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS