IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29223 OF 2024 Between: Paluru Gopala Krishnaiah, S/o Late Paluru Gurrapa, Aged about 45 years, R/o 10/660-A, KK Street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented, by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh. The Regional-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Anantapuram. The Proddatur Municipality, Represented by Commissioner, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. Sivapuram Parameswara Prasad, S/o Late Jagadeeswaraiah, Aged about 48 years, R/o 10/661, KK Street, Revenue Ward No. 10, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. Sivapuram Uma Mahesh, S/o Late Jagadeeswaraiah, Aged about 30 years, R/o 10/662, KK Street, Revenue Ward No. 10, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring action of Respondent No.3 for not implementing the provisional and final order No.U.C.No. 01/2023, U.C.No.02/2023 dated 05.06.2023 and 16.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.3, for removal of the illegal construction constructed by respondent no. 4 and 5 in the ♦ premises D.No.10/661 and 10/662, sy.no.419/A2, proddatur in wardno.10, konetikaluva street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, against the Building permit orders vide bearing NO. 1014/0461/B/PDTR/KKST/2022 dated 20.12.2022 and N0.1014/0468/B/PDTR/KKST/2022 dated 20.12.2022 as \ rlfegal,'\ arbitrary and contrary tp the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and the Andhra Pradesh buildings Rules 2017, besides being opposed to the very spirit and nature of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct 3rd respondents to implement the order i.e., U.C.No. 01/2023, U.C.No. 02/2023 dated 05.06.2023 and 16.06.2023 and to demolish the construction premises D.No. 10/661 and 10/662, sy.no.419/A2, proddatur in ward no. 10, konetikaluva street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District which is contrary to the approved plan as per the provision of the A.P. municipality act 1965 •V; - V lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the Respondent No. 3 to consider the representation date 20.09.2024 pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to desist the Respondent No.4 and 5 from carrying out construction activity in the premises bearing D.No. 10/661 and 10/662, KK Street, Revenue Ward No. 10, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAYALA BHAGYA RAJA Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondent No.3; M/S. V SIREESHA RANI, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents No.4, 5: None The Court made the following; Order 1 % APHC010524612024 :»■ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29223/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER PaluruGopalaKrishnaiah AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .RAYALA BHAGYA RAJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.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 is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or ...to issue a declaring action of respondent No. 3 for not direction, implementing the provisional and final order No. U.C.No.01/2023, U.C.No. 02/2023 dated 05.06.2023 and 16.06.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3 for removal of illegal construction constructed by respondent no.4 and 5 in the premises D.No.10/661 and 10/662, Wardno. 10,Konetikaluva Sy. no. 419/A 2, Proddatur street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, against the Building permit in orders vide bearing No. 1014/0461/B/PDTR/KKST/2022 dated No. 1014/0468/B/PDTR/KKST/2022 dated and 20.12.2022 20.12.2022 as illegal,arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Andhra Pradesh buildings Rules, 2017, besides being opposed to the very spirit and nature of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct 3^^respondents to implement the order i.e., U.C.No.01/2023, U.C.No.02/2023 dated 05.06.2023 and 16.06.2023 and to demolish the construction premises Ward D.No.10/661 and 10/662 Sy.No.419/A2,Proddatur in No.10,Konetil<aluva street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District which is contrary to the approved plan as per the provision of the A P Municipality Act, 1965...” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is absolute owner of the property KK Street, Proddatur, YSRKadapa District. The bearing D.N0.IO/66O-A 0 petitioner obtained approved building plan for construction of structure in the premises. While the matter stood thus, the respondents 4 and 5, who are absolute owners of the property bearing D.No.10/661 and 10/662 situated in N0.419/A2, Proddatur, Ward No.10, Konetikaluva Street, Proaddtur, Survey YSR Kadapa District, started raising of permanent structures/bui lding of G+2 adjacent to the property of the petitioner, after obtaining Building permission NO.1014/0461/B/PDTR/KKST/2022, dated 20.12.2022,and vide Permit 1014/0468/B/PDTR/KKST/2022, dated 20.12.2022, without leaving any setbacks as approved by the building plan. In spite of several attempts made by the petitioner as against respondents 4 and 5 for carrying out such constructions contrary to the approved building plan, thereby interfering with the rights of the petitioner over his property. Since the respondents 4 and 5 no other alternative, the failed to stop such illegal construction, having petitioner made a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 seeking their indulgence to take necessary action against such illegal constructions of the respondents 4 and 5. On receipt of the said representation, as the respondents 2 and 3 failed to take appropriate action pursuant to the representation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13278 of 2023.This court disposed of the said writ petition on 12.05.2023, directing the 3^^ respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents 4 and 5. By virtue of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.13278 of 2023, the 3^^^ respondent 4 and 5 th© work and in deviations which are has issued provisional 05.06.2023 to the respondents 4 and 5 directing them to stop the ground of certain demolish the illegal construction on contrary to the approved building plan with the said orders, the 3 responden 4 and 5 failed to issued confirmation order As the respondents comply illegal structures raised by 340 of the A.P. and 5 to demolish the the respondents 4 action will be directing initiated under Section them or else Municipalities the respondents 2 and 3 failed to take any Act, 1965. Since the said confirmation are continuing further construction work, the respondents 4 and 5 orders and the present writ petition is filed. action pursuant to and the learned Standing learned counsel for the petitioner Counsel for the Municipalities. Heard 3. learned Standing Counsel copy of ^ wherein it is 4 and 5 for for hearing, the 4. When the matter came up appearing written instructions stated that the 3 Municipality furnished a on behalf of the S'-* respondent- respondent-Municipality furnished by the 3 to respondents respondent issued notices set-backs as per the .No.13278 of 2023, the approved building plan and by respondents4 and 5 is not satisfactory, of Section 340 of the violation of not leaving any the directions in W.P virtue of the said explanation under the provisions submitted their reply and since respondent initiated action have the 3' 5 §1^ A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 for deviation in not leaving the set-backs, contrary to the approved building plan. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the fact that the 3 respondent has already initiated action by duly giving confirmation order 14.12.2024 to the respondents 4 and 5, whereby the respondents 4 and 5 were directed to remove the unauthorized constructions, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the respondents concerned can be directed to initiate further course of action in on pursuance of the confirmation order dated 14.12.2024 in accordance with law and to ensure not to make further constructions by the respondents 4 and 5. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to initiate further course of action in pursuance of the confirmation order dated 14.12.2024, in accordance with law and to ensure that the respondents 4 and 5 do not make any further constructions in the property in question. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. Sd/-KTATA RAO deputy REGI^AR fiferOFFlCER //true copy// SEC 2 °f Municipal Administration, 3 tl^rcSsioner, Proddatur Municipality. Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. To, • ? raja Advocate [OPUCl 5. TWO CCS to GP MUNC^AL ADMN AND URBAN ™iHARA»,S— SRI RAYALA BHAGYA dev AP, High Court 4. One CC to Counsel for Municipality 6 One CC to SRI V ■ [OPUCl 7. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 29/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.29223 of 2024 \ 0 6 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS