1 APHC010010582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 577/2025 Between: Nallaballe Sreenivas and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Roc.No. 1051/G1/2024, dt 27.12.2024, directing the petitioners to vacate from the premises of land situated in Sy. No. 977/3, to an extent of Ac. 0.05 Cents each of Madakalavaripalle Village fields and Gopavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, without having any power or jurisdiction is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural Justice and also apart from violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the petitioners land in Sy. No. 977/3, to an extent of Ac. 0.05 Cents each, situated at Madakalavaripalle Village fields and Gopavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and to pass...” 2. The petitioners are land losers as their lands were sub-merged in Telugu Ganga Project. Thereafter, the petitioners have purchased a land in Sy.No.977/3 to an extent of Acs.0.05 cents each in Madakalavaripalle Village, Gopavaram Mandal and the same is classified as dotted land. The 2nd respondent municipality has erected electrical poles, provided drainage and drinking water to the petitioners’ residential houses and laid roads. The 2nd respondent is also said to have been collecting property tax from the petitioners. The petitioners were also granted building permission by the 2nd respondent for construction of houses in their respective lands, subsequent to which the petitioners have also constructed residential houses in their lands. 3. While the matter stood thus, as the respondent authorities started interfering with the petitioners’ possession over their subject lands, the petitioners were constrained to file W.P.No.18858 of 2024 before this Court which was disposed of on 27.08.2024 observing as under: “9. Undisputedly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property. In such case, when the petitioners are in possession 3 and enjoyment of their respective property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. 10. It is settled principle of law that if the Respondents intend to make any developments through the petitioners’ property, they are under the statutory obligation to follow the due process as contemplated under the law. 11. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of and the Respondents are hereby specifically directed that if they intended to take any coercive steps or interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioners much less demolition of the structures of the petitioners, they shall follow the due process as contemplated under the law.” 4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities have wrongly interpreted the aforesaid order passed by this Court as if the Court has directed to evict the petitioners from their properties by following due process of law. As such, the 2nd respondent has issued a notice dated 19.09.2024 directing the petitioners to submit their explanation with all relevant evidences within 7 days of the said notice as to why the respondents shall not demolish/evict the structures unauthorizedly constructed in an extent of 400 sq.fts in Sy.No.977/3, Madakalavarpipalle Village, Badvel Municipality. To the said notice, the petitioners have submitted their explanation on 25.09.2024 enclosing all the relevant documents. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued another notice dated 11.11.2024 directing the petitioners to submit registered documents of the site along with link documents, latest EC pertaining to the unauthorized structures constructed by the petitioners in the subject land; to the said notice, the petitioners have submitted a reply dated 20.11.2024 requesting to supply the requisite documents to enable the petitioners to comply with the direction of the 2nd respondent. But, without supplying the said documents and without considering the reply dated 20.11.2024, the 2nd respondent has passed the 4 impugned proceedings dated 27.12.2024 directing the petitioners to vacate the subject premises within a period of 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the dotted lands are pending lands that are not used for any purpose and for which there are no clear ownership documents. The Tahsildar, Gopavaram mandal, YSR District, vide letter dated 26.10.2024 clearly emphasized that the land to an extent of 66.90 cents, which is classified as Government dry land and as dotted land, in Sy.No.977/3 is carved from Sy.No.856/1. However, an extent of Acs2.34 cents was assigned to one Sri. Chatakondu Subbarao vide DKT.No.1095/84, dated 12.01.1975; as the said land was not brought into cultivation within the stipulated time, the then Tahsildar, Gopavaram Mandal has cancelled the said DKT patta vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.561/95, dated 17.09.1997. As such, the land to an extent of Acs.2.34 cents in Sy.No.977/3 cannot be considered as dotted land. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the 2nd respondent has not provided any electrical lines, has not received any building permission application in the APDPMS portal and if at all an application is received, the same will be generated after paying initial Building Permit Fee as per chapter-III, Rule- 17(b) of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017. 6. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that as per the aforesaid rule, the initial building permit fee of Rs.3,000 of the proposed building has to be paid along with the application for building permission, whereas the petitioners have failed to pay the balance fees prescribed under rule 17(c). As such, the respondent authorities have not issued any permission to the petitioners herein. With regard to the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, the 2nd respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents have followed the due process contemplated under the law 5 while complying with the order in W.P.No.18858 of 2024, dated 27.08.2024. As this Court, in the earlier writ petition has directed to follow due process of law contemplated under law, if at all they intend to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ property, the 2nd respondent has issued notices calling for their explanations and has also conducted personal hearing, only then the impugned final order dated 27.12.2024 was issued. As the respondents have followed the due process of law in passing the impugned order dated 27.12.2024, the 2nd respondent has requested this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. Doddaka Harshavardhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities. 8. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be understood that earlier, when the respondent authorities have interfered with the petitioner’s possession over their property situated in Sy.No.977/3 in Madakalavaripalle Village, Gopavaram mandal basing on a complaint submitted by District Bhu Porata Sadhana Committee, petitioners have filed W.P.No.18858 of 2024 wherein this Court, vide order dated 27.08.2024, has directed the respondents to follow the due process as contemplated under law if at all they intend to take any coercive steps or interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said orders, the respondents have issued notices to the petitioners and have also conducted personal hearing by giving an opportunity to submit their explanations which were considered as per the rules by the authorities. Thereafter, vide notice dated 19.09.2024, the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioners to submit their explanation, with all relevant evidences within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice, as to why the AC sheet roof which was unauthorizedly constructed in an extent of 400 sq.fts in Sy.No.977/3, 6 Madakalavarpipalle village, Badvel Municipality shall not be demolished. In response, the petitioners have submitted their explanations, duly enclosing copies of temporary building plan, property tax receipts in the name of the holder of the premises and electricity bills; stating that there are no irregularities/encroachments as per Section 37 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. After receiving the said explanation, the 2nd respondent vide notice dated 11.11.2024 has directed the petitioners as under: “The property tax receipt submitted by you in the name of The Holder of premises only and assigned door numbers in the name of The Holder of the premises only without mentioning the name of the person, since it is an unauthorized construction made by you. The levying of Property Tax will not create any ownership rights. Hence, does not confirm any ownership right to you. You were attached the building application only along with your reply is not a online building permission copy. Therefore, you are here by directed to submit registered documents of the site along with link documents, Latest EC pertains to the Un-authorized construction of Ac-Sheet roof shed with built-up area 698.25 Sq.ft out of the total site area of Ac 0.05 cents in Sy.no.977/3, Madakalavaripalli (v), Badvel (M).” 9. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have submitted another explanation in similar lines as was submitted in their earlier explanation. Thereafter, vide notice dated 06.12.2024, the 2nd respondent has conducted personal hearing with all the individuals who have carried out encroachment in the subject land to have detailed clarification and to afford an opportunity to such individuals to submit their claims along with all relevant documents. Accordingly, the petitioners along with their advocates have attended the personal hearing where, neither the petitioners nor the advocates have submitted the relevant documents to establish the possession over the subject land. Subsequently, after going through the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the respondent authorities have concluded that the petitioners do not possess any relevant documents to establish their right title or ownership 7 over the subject site and that the petitioners are not the absolute owners of the site. Observing thus, the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioners to vacate the premises which was under the control of Council, Badvel Municipality as per Section 37 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 within 30 days from the receipt of the impugned notice, failing which, the same shall be removed departmentally. 10. This Court finds no wrong on the part of the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order dated 27.12.2024, as the petitioners, pursuant to the notice dated 11.11.2024, neither have submitted any registered documents of the subject land nor have submitted the link documents, in order to support their claim over the subject property. Mere possession of electricity connections and mere payment of property tax would not confer entitlement over the subject land. This court is of the further opinion that the respondent authorities, keeping in view the earlier direction given by this Court in W.P.No.18858 of 2024, have scrupulously followed the due procedure contemplated under law in passing the impugned order dated 27.12.2024. When the petitioners have failed to file any document in support of their claim over the subject land, this Court is of the opinion that neither the 2nd respondent nor this Court can evaluate the title of the petitioners over the subject land. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Petition, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:04.04.2025 Gss