IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE AMARAVATI PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO: 1065 OF NIMMAGADDA Between: Chintha Eswara Venkateswara Rao ^ . S/o Chinna Krishna Rao, aged 65 years. Business, R/o Door No. 14, Sampoornam Avenue Central Chennai, Pin-600026, Tamil Nadu. Vadapalani, ...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 Administration, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati 3. The Town Pianning Officer, Andhra Pradesh Capitai Region Deveiopment Authority, Lenin Centre, Vijayawada, NTR 4. The Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mangaiagiri Village AND Mandal Guntur Municipal Guntur District, A.P. District, A.P. District, A.P. ...Respondents of India praying that the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction nature of Writ of Mandamus, MAU61-DPOAMRV (OTH) /1/2025-DP, Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in may more particularly, one in the declaring the Proceedings in R.C. No. , dated 06-01- 2025 issued by 3'RD rJi respondent against the petitioner herein, threatening to seize, demolish penalty and dispossess from petitioner . situated in D.No.121 /A3A, 121/B2A / Thota Road, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District new construction RCC building near Door No. 3-638/4, Jama Oil without following procedure and contrary to Development natural justice and also India and also and consequently to direct the established by law, as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Authority Act, 2014 and violation of principles of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of to set aside the said proceedings and respondents 2 to 4 not to seize, demolish, penalty and dispossess the petitioner from her RCC building. lA NO: 1 OF 202.4 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings in R.C. No. MAU61-DPOAMRV (OTH) /1/2025-DP, dated 06-01-2025 issued by 3RD respondent against the petitioner and to direct the respondents not to praying that in the circumstances seize, demolish & penalty on 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, from their RCC building. Guntur District, and not to dispossess them pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SS RAMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: M/s APCRDA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A S C municipalities The Court made the following order: KRISHNA PRASAD S PRANATHI SC FOR BOSE SC FOR •'5r r APHC010020782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) r [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1065/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Chintha Eswara Venkateswara Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. The Court made the following: ;r aC THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA r WRIT PETITION No.1065 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, 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 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 RCC 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 or 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, 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 also not adhered to the setback norms as per the plan sanctioned by the 1®‘ respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 setbacks. proper measurements, the 1®‘ respondent cannot issue such a notice under Section 116(1) of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. Hence impugned notice dated 06.01.2025 is liable to be set aside. the 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1®^ 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 be noted and appropriate orders will be passed by the respondents, within a reasonable time. same can 6. 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 permission from the 1®' respondent in the month of August, 2022, the 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 the 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/ 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. 7. 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 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 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 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 k 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. Sd/- N. NAGAWIMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAPv //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Lenin Centre, Governor pet, 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. A S C Bose SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s S Pranathi SC for APCRDA [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 i I \ ■■ \ \ \ ORDER WP.No.1065 of 2025 OF S 2 9 JAN 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS