APHC010379212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 19173/2024 Between: Nukala Vijaya Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP WRIT PETITION NO: 19176/2024 Between: Nukala Vijaya Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) WRIT PETITION NO: 19178/2024 Between: Nukala Vijaya Kumar, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 The Court made the following common order:- Since the subject matter involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all these cases by way of this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, this Court reiterates the facts in W.P.No.19173 of 2024. 3. W.P.No.19173 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondents in attempting to demolish the Petitioner’s property situated at 6-74 and 6-78 at ward no.6 i.e. at Sy.No.163/1 of Banaganapalle village and Mandal, Nandyala District, without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to adhere to procedure prescribed under law and pass such other order or orders…” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents in all the writ petitions. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent vide proceedings bearing number B.L.No.288/2020-21 dated 15.04.2021 granted permission to construct a shop and other constructions on the first and second floors in the property belong to the petitioner situated at 6-74 and 6-78 at ward No.6 i.e., at Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village and Mandal, Nandyala District. Now, the 3 respondents are trying to demolish the petitioner’s property without following the procedure, as established by law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the power of demolition shall only be exercised, if the deviations made during the construction are not in public interest or cause public nuisance or hazardous or dangerous to the public safety, including the residents therein and if the deviations are minor, minimal or trivial, or do not affect public at large, the respondent authorities shall not resort to demolition and that the power of demolition should not be resorted to unless the overwhelming public interest is involved. 7. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent filed counter in all the writ petitions asserting that the 3rd respondent-The Kurnool Urban Development Authority, has directed the District Panchayat Office to verify the records and inspect the properties and to identify the unauthorized layouts and deviations tentatively. As directed, on inspection of records and on field verification it is found that the petitioners have raised a commercial building, in contrary to the approved building plan and constructed G+ 4 commercial structures without leaving proper setbacks. In view of the same, the Gram Panchayat passed resolution by cancelling the building plans to the petitioners. It is further asserted that the Gram Panchayat has granted building permission only for raising residential structure, but the 4 petitioners have raised commercial building unauthorizedly in violation of the conditions entailed in building permit. 8. It is known law that, even if the petitioners have constructed the building deviating the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat, still the petitioners are entitled for notice and the respondents shall follow the procedure, as established by law. 9. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents to follow due process of law before initiating any action against the petitioners’ subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 22.01.2025 KBN 5 119 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.19173, 19176 and 19178 of 2024 Date: 22.01.2025 KBN