APHC010146872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 7771 OF 2025.21699 OF 2020 AND 17892 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 7771 OF Between: Vanka Raghuveer, S/o.Ravindranath, aged about 37 years, Occ Business, R/o. 23-7-11, Park Street, Tanuku, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By its Principal Secretary - Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Tanuku Municipality, Tanuku, West Godavari Commissioner. 3. The Tanuku Municipal Council, Rep by its Special Officer, Municipality and Revenue Divisional Officer Narasapur, West Godavari 4. The Town Planning Officer, Tanuku Municipality, District. Municipal District. Rep by its Tanuku District. Tanuku, West Godavari ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent issuing Endorsement dated 18.7.2024 in Roc.No.1122/2024/G1 rejecting the statutory appeal filed under ‘ section 345 of the AP Municipalities Act on the ground that the writ petitions WP Nq»21 699/2020 and WP No. 17892/2022 are pending as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sec.345 of AP Municipalities Act and consequently set aside the same and further direct the 3rd respondent to statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. consider the lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondents No.1,3:GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.2,4: M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, (Standing Counsel For Municipalities) WRIT PETITION NO: 21699 OF 2020: Between: Nooli Venkat Ratna Rajesh, S/o Satyanarayana Murty, aged 44 yrs, business R/o 26-3-16, Alamurivari street, Tanuku, West Godavari District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. Director of Town and Country Planning Govt of A P, Mangalagiri ChinaKakani, Guntur District 3. Tanuku Municipality Tanuku, West Godavari District Rep by its Commissioner 4. Vanka Raghuveer, S/o ravindranath 23-7-11, Park Street Tanuku Godavari District West ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking action on the action on the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to the illegal, unauthorized constructions undertaken by the 4th respondent at Door No- 26-3- 15, Alamurivari Street, Tanuku, West Godavari District having identifying the deviations as illegal, arbitrary and violative' of principles of natural justice, consequently directing the respondents to stop further construction of the 4th respondent and take action on the illegal constructions at the said site. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by the respondent No 4 at Door No- 26-3-15, Alamurivarl street, Tanuku, West Godavari District by considering the complaint of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the latest photographs of the constructions at Door No. 26-3-15, Alamuri vari street Tanuku, West Godavari District by considering the complaint of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2:GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B V ANJANEYULU r WRIT PETITION NO: 17892 OF 2022 Between: Obilisetty Haranadh, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Aged 62 years, R/o. Flat No.203, A B Towers, NSC Bose Road, Rep. by his GPA Holder, Vobilisetti Sai Krishna. Tanuku, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Pd. Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Amaravati 2. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, ChinaKakani, Guntur District. 3. Tanuku Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tanuku, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. 4. Vanka Raghuveer, S/o. Ravindranath, aged about 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o.23-7-11, Park Street, Tanuku, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking action on the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to the illegal, unauthorized constructions undertaken by the 4th respondent at Door No. 26-3-15, Alamurivari street. Tanuku, West Godavari District having identifying the deviations as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently directing the respondents to demolish the construction done in violation of the approved plan and to the ends in the interest of justice. secure lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to take necessary steps to stop the illegal and un-authorized construction undertaken by the respondent No.4 at door 26-3-15, Alamurivari street, Tanuku, West Godavari District. no. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay against the illegal and un-authorized construction undertaken by the 4th respondent at door no. 26-3-15, Alamurivari street, Tanuku, West Godavari District and lA NO: 1 OF 2024 pass s Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Certificate is filed praying that in the circumstances not to issue any Occupancy Building Permit Order 1081/0114/B/TMC/AVS/2018 dated.29-08-2019 issued by 3rd Respondent in favour of 4th Respondent pending disposal of the other or orders. respect of the in No. Writ Petition and pass such flA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint an Advocate-Commissionerto measure the actual set-backs as well as note down the physical features in respect of the building constructed in pursuance of the Building Permit Order number 1081/0114/B/TMC/AVS/2018 dated.29-08 2019 issued by 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2:GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI,(Standing Counsel For Municipalities) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B V ANJANEYULU The Court made the following Common order: APHC010146872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 WP.No.7771 of 2n?5 Between: Vanka Raghuveer ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.B VANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(s): I.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP ...RESPONDENT(S) WP.No 21699 of 2020 Between: Noolivenkatratna Rajesh ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(s); I.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. B VANJANEYULU 3.M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 4.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV ...RESPONDENT(S) WP.No17892 of 2022 Between: Obilisetty Haranadh ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(s); I.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. B VANJANEYULU 3.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) II2II WP,Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 - - the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. WRIT PETITION Nos.7771 OF ?n‘?R N 21699 OF 2020 AND 17892 OF 20?? COMMON OROFR ; 1. The W.P.No.7771 of 2025 has been aggrieved by the endorsement dated 18.07.2024 2^^ and 3'’'^ respondents have rejected the the petitioner on the ground that two W.P.No.21699 of 2020 and W.P.No.17892 pending before this Court, and a Contempt Case No.425 of 2022 is also pending. filed by the petitioner, whereby the appeal preferred by writ petitions - of 2022 are 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.7771 of 2025 submits that the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside, as the pendency of the writ petitions is distinct from the consideration of an appeal filed under Section 345(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1955. The S’"'* respondent, despite being conferred with the power under the Act, ought to have passed an order on merits. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are sought to be set aside. 3. The W.P.No.21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 were filed by the petitioners, aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in preventing the 4'^ respondent (petitioner in WP.No.7771 of 112,11 WP.Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 2025) from proceeding further with unauthorized construction on the premises bearing D.No.26-3-15, Tanuku. It is submitted that both the writ petitions were filed at a very early stage, when the 4'*^ respondent (petitioner in WP.No.7771 of 2025) was proposing to construct the building in deviation of the sanctioned plan. It is submitted that the writ petitions were filed at a very early stage of construction by the 4*^ respondent (petitioner in WP.No.7771 of 2025). A provisional order was passed by the 3"'^ respondent 01.07.2020, calling upon the 4**" respondent to submit explanation as to why the unauthorized construction should not be removed or pulled down within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of the notice, and a confirmation was passed on 06.08.2020. on an 4. The W.P.No.17892 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction of the 3'’'^ respondent on the complaint of the petitioner seeking action against the unauthorized construction. It is submitted that the 3'’'^ respondent passed a second confirmation order on 10.09.2020 regarding the unauthorized structure. The 3'''^ respondent had previously issued another provisional order on 29.05.2021, followed by a confirmation order. A third confirmation order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the 3'"'' respondent in respect of the same same was WP.Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 construction, however the authorities failed construction. to demolish the illegal 5. This Court, vide order dated 03.04.2025 Corporation to conduct a building the Court regarding the deviations. directed the Municipal survey and submit a report to The report has been furnished to this Court in W.P.No.7771 of 2025, and the deviations have been noted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 17892 of 2022 submitted that the 4**^ respondent initially obtained permission for construction of a residential building. However, after completion of the construction, the 4‘^ respondent converted it into a commercial complex, which is contrary to the sanctioned plan. 7. The learned Standing Commissioner, Tanuku Municipality had counsel submits that the Municipal requested the petitioner for setback survey. It is also informed in the report that the stilt and ground floor are converted into commercial apart from other setback deviations. The survey report is taken on file. 8. The 4‘h respondent in WP.No.21699 of 2020 has filed duly stating that the construction of the any disturbance to the neighbours and that the filed only to cause loss to the petitioner. a counter respondent cannot cause writ petitions are WP.Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 9. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.No.7771 of 2025 and respondent No.4 in WP.Nos. 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondent/municipality. Perused the record. 10. The extent of violation of the sanctioned plan is ascertained by the report submitted by the Commissioner of Tanuku Municipality. Evidently, the construction which forms subject of the writ petitions has several deviations and the deviations with regard to setbacks are also noted in the report. The photographs would indicate that the stilt + ground floor is used for commercial activity, which could not have been permitted by the respondent/municipality. 11. The learned senior counsel submits that, the rejection of the appeal filed by writ petitioner in WP.No.7771 of 2025 on the ground that writ petitions are pending in the Court and that a direction may be issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. Pending consideration of such appeal, a direction to the respondent/municipality not to take any coercive steps or in the alternative, the respondent/municipality having noticed the deviations in construction may be directed to issue a WP,Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 notice to the petitioners to submit deviations which would be accordance with law. an explanation on the alleged appropriately dealt by the petitioner in 12. It IS not in dispute that the construction in discussion in the above writ petitions was declared three separate orders of confirmation, confirmation a unauthorized construction vide The first order of as was passed on 06.08.2020 confirming the construction as unauthorized at that point of time, it was foliowed by a second order of confirmation dated 10.09.2020 order of confirmation dated 11.06.2024 for the is also surprising as to what prevented the municipality from taking further action and the third same building. It respondent/ on the unauthorized construction inspite of passing three orders of confirmation, orders of confirmation passed under Section Municipalities Act, 1965 are statutory orders which call The 217 of the AP upon the owner of the building to show cause why alteration should made of the deviated portions. On the action it is the duty of the municipal authorities to not be owner failing to take take necessary action under Section 340-A of the AP Municipalities Act, 1965 pending further action under Section 228 of AP Municipalities Act, 1965 on the illegal construction. It is not essential for the 2*^ respondent to issue one more show cause notice on the already mil WP.Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 confirmed and determined illegal construction. The respondent/municipal authority has categorically and in clear terms passed three confirmation orders duly asserting the structures as constructed by deviating from the sanctioned plan. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the confirmation orders dated 06.08.2020 and 10.09.2020. Challenging the endorsement dated 18.07.2024 rejecting the appeal and also challenging the third confirmation order dated 11.06.2024 would serve no purpose as the confirmation orders dated 06.08.2020 and 10.09.2020 would continue to stare at the unauthorized structure. On these considerations, the impugned order in WP.No.7771 of 2025 challenging the endorsement deserves no consideration. The petitioner cannot harp on technicalities and try to gain time by dragging on the issue of taking corrective steps and contain the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. / 14. Tbe report submitted by the Municipal Authority makes it clear the extent of deviation in the construction of the building by the petitioner in WP.No.7771 of 2025. Appropriate action be initiated by the Commissioner, Tanuku Municipality against the illegal and unauthorized construction within a period of four weeks from the WP.Nos.7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 date of receipt of this order. The unauthorized construction made in deviation with the sanctioned plan is certainly infringing on the right of privacy of the neighbours. As such, the unauthorized construction deserves to be altered to suite the construction strictly as per the sanctioned plan. 15. Accordingly, WP.No.7771 of 2025 is dismissed. The directions issued to the Municipality for taking appropriate steps for demolishing the unauthorized construction made beyond the sanctioned plan, would address the plea of petitioners in WP.Nos.21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022, accordingly WP.Nos.21699 of 2020 and 17892 of 2022 are hereby disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t Sr SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2.Director of Town and Country Planning Govt Guntur District of A P, Mangalagiri ChinaKakani, 3. The Commissioner, Tanuku Municipality, Tanuku, West Godavari District. '<n / i h'i 4. The Special Officer, Tanuku Municipal Council, Tanuku Municipality and Revenue Divisional Officer Narasapur, West Godavari District. 5. The Town Planning Officer, Tanuku Municipality, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 6. One CO to SRI. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, Standing Counsel For Municipalities, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI. T.V.S. PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI. M. MANOHAR REDDY, Advocate (SC FOR MUNICIPALITY) [OPUC] 10. One CC to SRI. B.V ANJANEYULU, Advocate [OPUC] 11. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 12. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 ORDER WP NOs. 7771 of 2025, 21699 of 2020 and 17892 OF 2022 g 1 “I AUG 2m s DISMISSING THE WP 7771 OF 2025 AND DISPOSING OF WP NOs. 21699/2020 and 17892 of 2022 WITHOUT COSTS