APHC010393092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20254/2025 Between: 1. SIDDAVARAM JAYAMMA, W/O S. LAKSHMI NARAYANA AGE 50 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O 3/1439, SION PURAM, RAJAREDDY STREET, KADAPA, ANDHRAPRADESH, 516001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 2. KADAPA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NEAR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, R.S. ROAD, KADAPA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of confirmation dated 04.06.2025, which duly confirms the deviations pointed out in the Provisional Order dated 22.05.2025. 2. It is submitted that the deviations are minimal in nature, and the respondent Municipal Corporation can regularize the same in the exercise of its statutory powers. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the respondent authorities, after identifying the unauthorized construction, have also carried out the demolition of the illegal construction without causing harm to the structural stability of the building. It is also submitted that G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017, entitles claims for regularization of unauthorized construction to an extent of 10% deviation from the sanctioned plan. It is submitted that the deviations noticed in the petitioner’s construction are beyond the permissible limits; as such, they were not considered. 4. Considering the submissions, the 2nd respondent authority has also made drilling marks on the unauthorized portion of the structure as part of the standard identification and marking process carried out by the Town Planning Staff prior to the enforcement staff. 5. Heard the learned counsel appeared for the petitioner virtually online and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Considering the same, this Court finds no grounds to interfere. 3 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 05.08.2025 PNS