APHC010380162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos.19437 AND 19471 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 19437 OF 2025 Between: A. Lakshmi Devi, W/o A.Subba Reddy, age 35 years, R/o Door No. 6-6-165/6 &7, Badvel mandal, YSR district ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Velagapudi, Guntur district. 2. The Badevel Municipality, rep by its Commissioner, Badvel,, YSR District. 3. Sri V. Narasimha Reddy, S/o not known. Aged about 55 years. Commissioner Badvel Municipality Badvel, YSR district. Secretariat, ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the orders of the 2"^ respondent Roc.No.69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 14.7.2025 confirming the provisional notice for demolition of residential building bearing Door No. 6-6- 165/7 in the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, without power and violative of Article 14. 19, 21, and 300 A of the of the Constitution of India and Ss 223, 225, 228 & 228A of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners subject building and consider for regularization if there are deviations at par with other buildings and grant such other relief as may be deemed just and necessary in the interests of justice. lA 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 to suspend the impugned orders of the 2"^ respondent 69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 14.7.2025 confirming the provisional demolition of building bearing Door No. 6-6-165/7 in the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality and direct not to interfere with the enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the above writ petition. in Roc.No. notice for Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GUDAPATI LAKSHMINARAYANA, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.3:— APHC010380132025 I^0 0 WRIT PETITION NO: 19471 OF 202^ Between: V. Chinna Poll Reddy, S/o Chinna Poll Reddy, Godugunuru, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. age 48 years, R/o 2-52-2-1 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Velagapudi, Guntur district. 2. The Badevel Municipality, rep by its Commissioner, Badvel, YSR district. 3. Sri V. Narasimha Reddy, S/o not known. Commissioner Badvel Municipality Badvel, YSR district. Secretariat, Aged about 55 years. ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to pas orders particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the orders of the 2"^^ respondent Roc. No. 68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 14.7.2025 confirming the provisional notice for demolition of residential building bearing Door No. 165/6 in the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality as arbitrary. Illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, without power and violative of Article 14, 19, 21, and 300 A of the of the Constitution of India and Ssi 223, 225, 228 & 228A of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 6-6- 1965 and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners subject building and consider for regularization if there are deviations at par with other buildings and grant such i other relief as may be deemed just and necessary in the interests of justice. lA NO 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 to suspend the impugned orders of the 2 nd respondent in Roc. No. 68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 14.7.2025 confirming the provisional notice for demolition of building bearing Door No. 6-6-165/6 in the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality and direct not to interfere with the enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GUDAPATI LAKSHMINARAYANA, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.3:— The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 HN,J 4 W.P.Nos.19437 and 19471 2025 APHC010380162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19437/2025 Between: 1.A LAKSHMI DEVI, W/0 A.SUBBA REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS, R/0 DOOR NO. 6-6-165/6 AND 7, BADVEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE BADEVEL MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. 3.SRI V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/0 NOT KNOWN, AGED ABQUT 55 YEARS. COMMISSIONER BADVEL MUNICIPALITY BADVEL, YSR 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 pleased topleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the orders of the 2nd respondent Roc.No. 69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 14.7.2025 confirming the provisional notice for demolition of residential building bearing Door No. 6-6- 165/7 in the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, without power and violative 2 Of Article 14, 19, 21, and 300 A of the of thp Cnn i947i_2025 225,228and 228AoftheA.P.Munr» 223, aside the same and direct the resnnnriontc ^ consequently, set possession and enjoyment of the petitioners "°h ° peaceful regularization if there are deviafcns a nar .k 1!'=' other relief as may he deemed just and nec:ssa; ,d th^'Ss" oSLe"' lA NO: 1 OF on-jK Petition under Section 151 cPC in the affidavit filed i pleased to 69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt 14 7 209^ rnf '‘espondent in Roc.No. demplition of building bearing Door No 6 6 165/^*''^h mit. of Badvel Municipality and direct n^Uo fmerfe e wUhr"'""'''^ the property pending disposal of the above writ p^ton pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP 3 , HN,J W.P.Nos.19437 and 19471_2025 APHC010380132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19471/2025 Between: 1.V CHINNA POLl 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 ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE BADEVEL MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. 3.SRI V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/0 NOT KNOWN. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. COMMISSIONER BADVEL MUNICIPALITY BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ...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 pleased topleased to pas orders particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the orders of the 2nd respondent Roc. No. 68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 14.7.2025 confirming the provisional notice for demolition of residential building bearing Door No. 6-6- 165/6 in the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality as arbitrary. 4 HN, ... , . , . W.P.Nos.19437 and 19471_2025 Illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, without power and violative of Article 14, 19, 21, and 300 A of the of the Constitution of India 223, 225, 228 and 228A of the A.P. Municipalities consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners subject building and consider for regularization if there are deviations at par with other buildings and grant and and Act, 1965 and lA 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 pleased to suspend the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No. 68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 14.7.2025 confirming the provisional notice for demolition of building bearing Door No. 6-6-165/6 in the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality and direct not to interfere with the enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPALADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 5 HNJ W.P.Nos.19437 and 19471 2025 The Court made the following Common Order: The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned proceedings Roc.No.69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 and Roc.No.68/1123/BDL/UC/2024, dated 1. nd 14.07.2025, whereby the 2 respondent has passed a final order of confirmation, calling upon the petitioners to bring down the alleged construction within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which further action under Section 340-A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh I Municipalities Act, 1965, would follow. I 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition Nos. 16942 and 16947 of 2025 aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Municipality in passing the orders for seizing the residential plots of the petitioners vide orders dated 14.07.2025. The learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the impugned proceedings; however, liberty was granted to the respondent-Municipality to issue an independent show cause notice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners obtained permission for construction of a residential house in the year 2010, and on account of the various difficulties, the petitioners could not complete the construction. As such, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 21.08.2023, seeking permission to complete the construction, as the petitioners were recovering from their financial difficulties, and also undertook to pay the renewal fee. The said representation was followed by another representation. 6 HN, W.P.Nos.19437 and 19471_2025 dated 15.11.2023. The petitioners completed the construction thereafter. The competent authorities ought to have either accepted the request of the petitioners or rejected the same within a period of sixty days, as per Section 214 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. The petitioners proceeded to complete the construction in all respects. The respondent Corporation also assessed the buildings for taxes and levied taxes, which were duly paid by the petitioners. As the things stood thus, the respondent-Municipality addressed a notice 4. dated 04.07.2025, which was not served on the petitioners, and soon after. passed the impugned proceedings confirming the alleged construction as unauthorized and called upon the petitioners to bring down the said construction. rd The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 3 5. respondent is a resident of the same village and, on account of political differences, has targeted the petitioners’ property. 6. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2^’^ respondent submits that the 3'"'^ respondent discharged his official duty and, as such, had the power to issue impugned proceedings. That apart, it is submitted that the construction is still in progress. It is further submitted that Section 216 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, would have to be invoked by the petitioners for submitting a fresh application. 7 : HNJ W.P.Nos.19437 and 19471_2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing 7. counsel appearing for the respondents. The impugned proceedings refer to the provisional notice dated 28.11.2024. The proceedings dated 04.07.2025 also refer to the alleged show cause notice dated 28.11.2024 and the notice dated 03.01.2024 calling upon the 8. petitioner to stop the work. It is not in dispute that the notice was not served on the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that this Court had set aside the earlier proceedings issued by the 2"'^ respondent seizing the buildings of the petitioners and had granted liberty to the 2"^^ respondent to issue an independent notice. Relying on the notice dated 28.11.2024 for issuing the impugned proceedings cannot be 9. sustained. It is not in dispute with the petitioners had obtained permission for construction of the- house after paying the requisite fee. disputed that there is no specific format prescribed for applying for renewal of building permission, though there exists an online format for applying for fresh 10. It also cannot be permission. In such circumstances, it would have been open for the respondent municipal authorities to consider the representation dated 21.08.2023 and 15.11.2023 as an application for renewal of permission. Surprisingly, the 2 respondent has not acted on the representations dated 21.08.2023 and 11. nd 8 IHN,J W.P.Nos.19437 and 19471_2025 15.11.2023. Section 228-A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, also empowers the municipal authorities to regularize the construction. 12. Having assessed the building for taxes and having collected the same the issuance of the impugned proceedings cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. On these considerations, the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit a representation for renewal of permission and also for regularization of the construction. 13. 14. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Velagapudi, Guntur district. The Commissioner, Badevel Municipality, Badvel, YSR District. One CC to Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, SC for Municipalities[OP UC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies. and Urban Secretariat, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 COMMON ORDER WP Nos. 19437 and 19471 OF 2025 O > 12 AUG 2025 m o>. ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS