APHC010338742025 IN the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH>^ AT AlWARAVATI ^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITIOM WRIT PETITION NO: 16949 rip Between: A. Lakshmi Devi, W/o A.Subba Badvel mandal, YSR district. o o FIVE nyapathy vijay 16942 and 16947 np 9nog 2025 Reddy, age 35 years, R/o Door No. 6-6-165/7, ...petitioner AND Rep by its Principal Secretary, Development Department, 1- The State of Andhra Pradesh, Administration and Urban Velagapudi, Guntur district. 2. The Badevel district. 3. Sri V. Narasimha Municipal Secretariat, Municipality, rep by its Commissioner, Badvel YSR Reddy, S/o not known. Commissioenr, Badvel Municipality Aged about 55 Badvel, YSR district. years ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the the High Court may be the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the 2 circumstances stated i pleased to in the affidavit filed therewith, pass orders particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution Roc.No. 69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 Door No. 6-6-165/7 i one nd respondent dt. 4.7.2025 seizing fhe residential building in the Chennampaili village limits of Badvei Municipality in as arbitrary, illegal, violative and violative of Article 14, and Section 228 of the ‘ ' ' i- '' ■ same and direct possession and enjoyment of the other relief as may be deemed just |A NO: 1 OF 9091; Of the principles of natural justice, without 19. 21, and 300 A of the of the Constitution A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 power of India and consequently set the respondents not to interfere with the peacefully grant such above petitioners building and and necessary in the interests of justice Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated to suspend the impugned orders of the 2nd may be pleased respondent in Roc.No.69 residential building in of Badvel Municipality property pending disposal /1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 4. 7.2025 seizing the petitioner's the Chennampalli village limits Door No. 6-6-165/7 iin and direct not to interfere with of the above writ petition. the enjoyment of the Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL administration and urban development No.2; SRI G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, Counsel for the Respondent SC FOR municipalities Counsel for the Respondent No.3:~ APHC010338712025 I** WRIT PETITION NO- Between: 2025 V. Chinna Poli Reddy, S/o Chinna Godugunuru, Badvel mandal Pol^ Reddy, age 48 years, R/o 2-52-2-1 YSR district. ...PETITIONER AND , rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Development Department, 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Administration and Urban Velagapudi, Guntur district. Secretariat, 2. The Commissioner, Badevei Municipality 3. Sri V. Narasimha , Badvel, YSR district. Aged about 55 YSR district. Reddy, S/o not known. Commissioenr, Badvel Municipality Badvel years. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to pass orders under Article 226 of respondent Roc. No. of India praying that in the the High Court may be particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus the Constitution declaring the orders of the 2 nd 68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 4.7.2025 seizing the -165/6 in the Chennampalli village limits as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural residential building in Door No. 6-6 of Badvel Municipality justice, without power and violative the Constitution of India of Article 14, 19^ 2I and 300 A of the of Municipalities Act, 1965 direct the respondents not and enjoyment of the above and Section 228 of the A P consequently set aside the same and interfere with the and to peacefully possession petitioners building and necessary in the interests of justice. jA NO: 1 OF grant such other relief may be deemed just and as in the """ <=i--s.ances stated affidavit filed m support of the petition, the High Coud suspend the impugned orders of the a"" may be pleased to respondent in Roc.No. residential building Badvel Municipality enjoyment of the property pending disposal 68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 4.7.2025 seizing the petitioner's in Door No. 6-6-165/6 in the Chennampaili village limits of and direct not to interfere with the eni of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL administration and urban development No.2: SRI G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, municipalities Counsel for the Respondent SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the No.3:- following COMMON ORDER; APHC010338742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 16942/2025 Between: 1 A LAKSHMI DEVI, W/0 A.SUBBA REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS, door no. 6-6-165/7, BADVEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER R/0 AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS Pf^'^CIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN SECRETARY, ^^p^R^^^NT, SECRETARIAT, DEVELOPMENT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE BADEVEL MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. NARASIMHA REDDY, S/0 NOT KNOWN. AGED ABOl^ BADVEL MUNICIPALITY 3.SRI V YEARS, COMMISSIOENR BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. 55 ...RESPONDENT(S): r 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 16947/90?.*; Between: 1.V CHINNA POLI REDDY, S/0 CHINNA POLL REDDY, AGE 48 YEARS, R/0 2-52-2-1, GODUGUNURU, BADVEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, BADEVEL MUNICIPALITY YSR DISTRICT. BADVEL, 3.SRI V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/0 NOT KNOWN. AGED ABOUT BADVEL MUNICIPALITY 55 YEARS, COMMISSIOENR BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: honourable SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY PFT»TinM Nos.16942 of 2025 THE WRIT rnMMON ORDERl the orders in filed questioning and Roc.No.68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 These Writ Petitions are 1. Roc.No.69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 inq the residential buildings in Chennampalli village, within the illegal and arbitrary. 04.07.2025 respectively in seizing dated .Nos.6-6-165/7 and 6-6-165/6 in Municipality, Y.S.R. District, as D limits of Badvel leading to filing of the present Writ Petitions are as The facts 2. follows;- of the above referred issued for construction of vide the absolute owners The Petitioners are residential buildings G+2 residential B.A.No.10/2010 A building plan was Respondent-Municipality building by the According to the Petitioners the buildings were order under Section 340-A(1) of the Andhra completed. While so, an Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short A.P.M.C. Act, 1965”) was building with Pradesh passed by immediate effect. Hence, the authority seizing the the Respondent present Writ Petitions are filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that no prior notices were issued to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order. Further, it is contended that the show cause notice dated 28.11.2024, stop work order dated 03.01.2024 and confirmation order dated 30.01.2025, which are referred in the impugned proceedings were not issued to the Petitioners at any point of time. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would further contend that the power under Section 340-A(1) of the A.P.M.C. Act, 1965 is an independent power and not a necessary consequence of an order passed under Section 228 of the Act. Therefore, the same would warrant an independent show cause notice before passing the impugned order. The further contention is that the power is to be exercised only when the building construction is ongoing and not when the same is occupied. The counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13136 of 2021 and batch, dated 05.08.2022. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Municipality on instructions denies the building plan vide B.A.No. 10/2020 said to have been issued to Petitioners. Apart from that, it is contended that per Rule 3(23)(a) and (b) of the A.P. as Building Rules, 2017, presently Rule 3(24)(a) and (b), even assuming that the building plan in faro-ur of the Petitioners is held to be genuine, the construction of 3 the buildings should have been completed within the period of three (3) years. As the construction by the Petitioners is extended beyond the period of three (3) years, as apparent from the notices issued to the Petitioners on 28.11.2024, 03.01.2024 and 30.01.2025, the construction is in violation of the said Rules and therefore the action of the Respondent authority cannot be faulted with. 5. The learned Standing Counsel denying the allegations of the political rivalry contended that pursuant to the orders of seizing the premises, the Petitioners had used force and had broke open the locks and had violated the impugned order. Having heard the respective counsels, this Court opines as 6. under; Section 340-A(1) of The A.P.M.C. Act, 1965 enables the Commissioner before or after making an order for the removal or discontinuance of any unauthorized development or construction under Section 228, to make an order directing the sealing of such development or property or taking the assistance of the police, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. 4 r There is no dispute to the fact that prior to the issuance of impugned notice under Section 340-A(1) of the Act, no independent show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners by the Respondents proposing action under Section 340-A(1) of the Act. 7. In the opinion of this Court, as the exercise of power under 8. Section 340-A(1) of the Act is an independent act impacting the constitutional right of an individual to the property as recognized under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such an exercise would require a prior notice. It would be appropriate to exercise such extreme power only after hearing the concerned persons. The action of the Respondent authority in straight away issuing impugned notice under Section 340-A(1) of the Act apparently is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice considering the extreme impact it has on citizenry. 9. Further as per the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13136 of 2021 and batch dated 05.08.2022, the power to seize a building under Section 461-A of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is available only when the building construction is in progress. Such a power was held to be not available when the construction is completed. The impugned notice was issued under Section 340-A of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 which is "pari materia" to Section 461-A of the 5 A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Judgment of this Court referred above would undoubtedly apply to the exercise of power under Section 340-A(1) of the Act. Therefore, it has to be stated by the Respondent authority that the building construction is in progress for taking action under Section 340-A(1) of the Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Respondent authority to examine these aspects and pass appropriate orders. The Writ Petitions are therefore disposed of with the following 10. directions; (i) The impugned orders dated 04.02.2025 are set-aside; (ii) The Respondent authority shall issue an independent show cause notice to the Petitioners as to why action under Section 340-A(1) of the Act should not be taken, if needed; (iii) On such notice, the Petitioners shall respond to the same within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the notice; (iv) Further the Petitioners are entitled to raise the issue of non-service of notices dated 28.11.2024, 03.01.2025 and 30.01.2025, which are referred in the impugned proceedings and the Respondent authority shall consider the same. 6 (v) No orders as to costs. 11. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIOr/oFFICER To. 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Development Department, State of Velagapudi, Guntur district. 2. The Commissioner, Badevel Municipality, Badvel, YSR district. 3. One CC to Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, SC for Municipalities[OPUC ] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies Administration and Urban Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat and Urban Development ssb .<4 HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 COMMON ORDER WP Nos. 16942 and 16947 OF 2025 Cj 10 JUI. 2025 ° .X m o ^ . Current Seciion , ^ disposing of the writ petitions WITHOUT COSTS