APHC010320312021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19653/2021 Between: 1. P. MUJEEBUR REHMAN, S/O. AHMAD KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 20-9-75, MAHAMOOD MANZIL, DYKAS ROAD, KOTAMITTA, NEAR SHADI MANZIL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 5. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, NELLORE MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED IQBAL, MUSLI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D.NO. 21-291, JANDA STREET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2 8. AP POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KASTURIBAIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 9. DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. JANARDHANA REDDY PONAKA 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 5. V SURENDRA REDDY (SC FOR PCB) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking action against the illegal construction taken up by the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent had obtained permission for the construction of a residential house. 2. It is submitted that the 7th respondent had deviated from the sanctioned plan and constructed a commercial building. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.06.2021 to take action on the illegal construction taken up by the 7th respondent. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter, duly informing the Court that action has been taken against the illegal construction and that a notice was issued to the 7th respondent to pull down the structure, vide a provisional order dated 23.02.2024. It is submitted that a confirmation order was passed on 05.03.2024, declaring the construction an illegal structure and further directing the 7th respondent to demolish the same, failing which the 4th respondent shall be constrained to take necessary action. 4. The learned counsel appearing virtually online for the 7th respondent submits that there is deviation from the sanctioned plan and that the petitioner is also running a commercial activity in the residential area. 4 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, and the learned counsel appearing virtually for the 7th respondent. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that a show cause notice dated 27.06.2025 was also issued for the revocation of the building permission. It is submitted that further action will be initiated and necessary steps will be taken expeditiously in accordance with the Municipal Corporations Act. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed off, directing the 4th respondent to take necessary action in pursuance of the confirmation order passed on 05.03.2024. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 04.08.2025 PNS