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: 1066 OF 2025 Between: Gurrala Durga Radhika, W/o Sri Rama Krishna, aged 39 years. Housewife 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. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Rep by its Commissioner, Lenin Centre, Governor pet, Vijayawada-520002,NTR 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. Rep. by its ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated 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 R.C. No. MAU61-DPOAMRV (OTH) /1/2025-DP, dated 06-01-2025 issued by 3 one rd respondent against the petitioner herein, threatening to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess from petitioner 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 procedure established by law contrary to the > without following as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Reg - principles of natural Constitution of proceedings and consequently to not to seize, demolish, her RCC building. ion Development Authority Act 2014 and violation of justice and also Articles 14, India and also and to 15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the set aside the said direct the dispossess the petitioner from lA NO: 1 OF respondents 2 to 4 penalty and Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed circumstances staled in the affidavit filed i High Court praying that in the - in support of the petition, the suspend the Proceedings in R.c. No. -DP, dated 06-01-2025 may be pleased to MAU61-DPOAIVIRV (OTH) /1/2025 respondent against the issued by 3'''^ respondents not to petitioner and to direct the seize, demolish & penalty on petitioner new construction RCC 121/B2A, near Door No. 3-638/4 building Jama Oil not to dispossess them situated in D.No. 121 /A3A Thota Road, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, and from their RCC building, pending disposal of the Counsel for the Petitioner ; writ petition. SRI. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No ’s. 1 & 3; M/S S PRANATHI, SC FOR APCRDA 2: GP FOR MUNC ADMN URBAN 4: SRI ASC BOSE, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No. Counsel for the Respondent No. DEV municipalities The Court made the following ORDER: \ «5^ APHC010020812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] H^ili FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1066/2025 Between: Gurrala Durga Radhika ...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. The Court made the following: \ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA / WRIT PETITION No.1066 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.No.MAU61-DPOAMRV(OTH)/1/2025-DP dated 06.01.2025 issued by 3''^ respondent against the petitioner herein, threatening to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess from petitioner 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 and to set aside the said proceedings and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess the petitioner from her ROC building and pass such other order or orders ” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the house site admeasuring to an extent of 233.93 Sq.yds or 195.59 Sq.feet situated in Sy.No.121/A3A and 3. Sy.No.121/B2A, near Door No.3-638/4, Jama Oil Thota Road, 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 a mortgage deed in favor of the 1 respondent on 10.08.2022. He further submits that at the stage of completion of construction, the respondents herein issued an impugned notice dated 06.01.2025 stating that the petitioner got constructed Ground + 4 floors, which is contrary to the permission granted and further the petitioner St also not adhered to the setback norms as per the plan sanctioned by the 1 respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner 4. 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 the 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 115(1) of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. Hence, the impugned notice dated 06.01.2025 is liable to be set aside. St On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 5. respondent submits that since it is only a notice, let there be a detailed explanation from the petitioner treating the said notice as a 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 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. 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 respondent as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 28.03.2017, authorizing the 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 respondents is not in strict sense and in compliance of the law. Further, it is bold and not specific. 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 or 7. 1r measure what is the unauthorized/ illegal construction, if so, what extent and which side or which floor, the said violations 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 ail 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 06.01.2025. It is an admitted case of both the counsel that the show cause notice does not contain any particulars of violations said to have been committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed to issue notice to the notice with all the clear and specific particulars nd petitioner afresh as 2 denoting the violations committed by the petitioner. After receipt of such notice, the petitioner herein is directed to submit his detailed explanation within a period of three (03) weeks, thereafter. After receipt of such explanation from the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 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 no order as to costs. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ Consequently petition shall stand closed. Sd/-P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SE' To, The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Lenin Centre, Governor pet, Vijayawada-520002,NTR District, A.P. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. The Town Planning Officer, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Lenin Centre, Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. The Commissioner, Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, Mangalagiri Village and Mandal Guntur District, A.P. One CC to SRI. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI ASC BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES [OPUC] One CC to M/S S PRANATHI, SC FOR APCRDA [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MUNC ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. PRK HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1066 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS