. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1064 OF 2025 Between: 1. Gurrala Sri Rama Krishna, S/o Samba Siva Rao, aged 45 Business, R/o Door No.3-665, D.No.121 /A3A, 121/B2A, Jama Oil Thota Road, Undavalli Village, Amaravati Road, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, Pin-522501, A.P. years 2. Chintha Ratna Malika, W/o Eswara Venkateswara Rao, aged 61 years. Housewife, R/o Door No. 14, Sampoornam Avenue, Vadapalani, Chennai, Pin-600026, Tamil Nadu. ...PETITIONER’S AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Rep by its Commissioner, Lenin Centre, Governor pet, Vijayawada-520002 District, A.P. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. 3. The Town Planning Officer, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Lenin Centre, Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. 4. The Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation Commissioner, Mangalagiri Village and Mandal, Guntur District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the Proceedings in NTR Rep. by its that in the circumstances stated one R.C. No. MAU61-DPOAMRV (OTH) /1/2025-DP, dated 04-01- 2025 issued by 3"'^ respondent against the 1®* petitioner herein, threatening to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess from petitioners new construction RCC building situated in D.No.121 /A3A, 121/B2A, near Door No. 3-638/4, Jama Oil Thota Road, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, without following procedure established by law, as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and violation of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also and to set aside the said proceedings and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess the petitioners from his RCC building. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 authorities to suspend the Proceedings in R.C. No. MAU61- DPOAMRV (OTH) /1/2025-DP, dated 04-01-2025 issued by 3 rd respondent against the 1 direct the respondents not to seize, demolish & penalty on petitioners new construction RCC building situated in D.No.121 /A3A, 121/B2A, near Door No. 3-638/4, Jama Oil Thota Road, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District not to dispossess them from their RCC building, pending disposal of the writ petition. petitioner and to , and Counsel for the Petitioner’s:SRI. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1: M/S S PRANATHI, SC FOR APCRDA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR MUNC ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 3 & 4: SRI ASC BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following ORDER: r APHC010020792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0E0 [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1064/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Gurrala Sri Rama Krishna and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.1064 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; "to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Proceedings in R.C.N0.MAU6I-DPOAMRV (OTH) /1/2025-DP, dated 04.01.2025 issued by 3""^ respondent against the 1^^ petitioner herein, threatening to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess from petitioners new construction ROC building situated in D.No.121 /A3A, 121/B2A, near Door No.3-638/4, Jama Oil Thota Road, Tadepalll Mandal, Guntur District without following procedure established by law as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and violation of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also to set aside the said proceedings and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess the petitioners from his ROC building and pass such other order or orders ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel 2. for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is 3. the absolute owner and possessor of the house site admeasuring to an extent of 233.93 Sq.yds 195.59 Sq.feet situated in Sy.No.121/A3A and Sy.No.121/B2A, near Door No.3-638/4, Jama Oil Thota Road or Undavalli Gram Panchayat, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District. While so, the petitioner herein obtained permission for construction of a building with Ground + 3 floors as a residential building, for which, the petitioner executed favor of the 1®' respondent on 10.08.2022. He further submits that a mortgage deed in at the stage of completion of construction, the respondents herein issued an impugned notice dated 04.01.2025 stating that the petitioner got constructed Ground floors which is contrary to the permission granted and further the also not adhered to the setback + 4 petitioner norms as per the plan sanctioned by the 1®' respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said was received on 08.01.2025. He further submits that the petitioner herein had constructed common amenities like lift room, water tank, closure of stair case and elevation works only in the 4‘' floor and also maintained setbacks. Without proper measurements, demarcation and physical inspection of same, the respondents boldly stated that the petitioner not maintained setbacks as required as per the plan. He further submits that without there being proper demarcation, proper measurements, the 1®* respondent cannot issue such a notice under Section 116(1) of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. Hence, the impugned notice dated 04.01.2025 is liable to be set aside. notice the On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 respondent submits that since it is only a show cause notice, let there be a detailed explanation from the petitioner to the show cause notice. On receipt of such explanation, the respondents will inspect, demarcate, measure the deviations, if any taken place while constructing the subject building. If any illegal construction/ deviations are found, the same can be noted and appropriate orders will be passed by the respondents, within a reasonable 5. time. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property and after obtaining due respondent in the month of August, 2022, the 6. St permission from the 1 petitioner got constructed a new building with Ground+3 floors. It is further observed that the petitioner also executed a mortgage deed in favour of the 1®^ respondent as per terms of G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 28.03.2017, authorizing the 1®^ respondent to initiate appropriate action as per the said G.O., in the event, the petitioner violated or deviated the terms of the plan sanctioned. In view of the same, the respondents shall issue proceedings with all the specific particulars and details which are violated by the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussion and on perusal of the notice issued by the respondents, it is found that the notice issued by the respondentsis not in strict sense and in compliance of the law. Further, it is bold and not specific. 7. It is a settled proposition of law, once the respondents found/ determine the subject construction within its jurisdiction is unauthorized or illegal, it is the statutory obligation/ responsibility on part of the respondents to determine measure what is the unauthorized/ illegal construction, if so, what extent and which side or which floor, the said violations or were committed by the parties concerned. In the absence of these particulars, issuing of notice simply stating that there are violations and issuing demolition notice is contrary to law and liable to be suspended. It is the primary duty cast upon the authorities/ respondents that they should make physical inspection and to be found all the particulars before issuing notice as impugned in the present writ petition. But certainly, without conducting physical inspection, basing upon the complaint received from the third party, the authorities concerned cannot be proceeded and not to issue demolition notice. As such in the instant case, the petitioner already submitted an explanation to the show cause notice dated 04.01.2025 It is an admitted case of both the counsel that the show contain any particulars of violations said to have been cause notice does not committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner afresh as 2""' notice with all the clear and specific particulars denoting the violations committed by the petitioner. After receipt of such notice, the petitioner herein is directed to submit his detailed explanation receipt of such explanation from the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall consider same and pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of within a period of three (03) weeks, thereafter. After the four (04) weeks thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other stake holders, if any. It is further directed the petitioner shall co-operate and to submit explanation within the time stated supra and appear before the authority concerned as per the time fixed by the respondents. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and not to take any coercive action against the subject property of the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be 8. no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. J Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO assistant registrar I //true copy// officer SE To 1. The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Lenin Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada-520002, NTR District, A.P. 2. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. 3. The Town Planning Officer, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Lenin Centre, Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. 4. The Commissioner, Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, Mangalagiri Village and Mandal, Guntur District, A.P. 5. One CC to SRI. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI ASC BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/S S PRANATHI, SC FOR APCRDA [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNC ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies PRX HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1064 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS