1 HN, J W.P.No.18501_2025 APHC010368682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18501/2025 Between: 1. CHILLA SRINIVASU,, S/O. C.JAMPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.2-47-189, NOOKALAMMA MANYAM NEAR 100 BUILDING CENTER, PEERRAJU PETA, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. CHILLA NAGALAKSHMI,, W/O. C. SRINIVASU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.2-47-189, NOOKALAMMA MANYAM, NEAR 100 BUILDING CENTER, PEERRAJU PETA, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY CITY PLANNER, KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA URBAN MANDAL, KAKINADA 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 2 HN, J W.P.No.18501_2025 pleased tomay be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in threatening to demolish the 2nd petitioners property admeasuring an extent of 35 Sq.Yds situated in T.S.No.6/1, ward No.5, Kakinada Municipal corporation, Kakinada District by issuing notice dt. 15.07.2025 without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and in contrary to the provisions of AP Municipal corporation Act, 1955 and rules thereunder and consequently set aside the notice dt. 15.07.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to follow due process of law and pass IA 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the subject property admeasuring an extent of 35 Sq.Yds situated in T.S.No.6/1, ward No.5, Kakinada Municipal corporation, Kakinada District by suspending the notice dt. 15.07.2025 issued by the respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAVITEJA JAMMALAMADAKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following 3 HN, J W.P.No.18501_2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.18501 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2025 were issued by the Deputy City Planner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment in 6th ward. It is submitted that three days’ time was given for removing the said encroachment. It is further submitted that the Deputy City Planner, issued such notice, without issuing a show-cause notice prior to the impugned proceedings. It is also submitted that the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent corporation is competent to issue the impugned proceedings and not the 3rd respondent. 2. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioners have encroached on public property and complaints were received regarding the said encroachment. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of 35 square yards of land and has constructed a house after purchasing the same vide a registered sale deed dated 14.05.2015. It is further submitted that within the 35 square yards of land, petitioners have erected a shed for 4 HN, J W.P.No.18501_2025 setting up a shop, and that the business opponents to the petitioners’ filed a false complaint. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. Considering the submission that the impugned notice was issued without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to submit an explanation for the alleged encroachment, the proceedings directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment within a period of three days ought not to not have been issued. 5. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 18.07.2025 NKA 5 HN, J W.P.No.18501_2025 48 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Writ Petition Nos. 18501 of 2025 Date: 18.07.2025 NKA