APHC010611332023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31444/2023 Between: Y.l.ram Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G N V PULLA RAO 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the in action of the Respondents No.1 and 2 in taking further action under Sec.452 (1) and 461 (1) of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to stop the illegal construction without leaving setbacks, by the above named 314 Respondent at D.No.39-7- 10/2, A.P. Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District as intimated under R.C.No.G6-119960/2022, dt-10-02-2023 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct the official Respondents to complete the proceedings in furtherance of intimation dt-10-02-2023....” 2. The 3rd respondent herein is the owner of the property bearing D.No.39-7-10/2, A.P. Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada and the petitioner herein is the eastern neighbor of the 3rd respondent. When the 3rd respondent started construction without leaving setbacks, the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint through spandana to the 2nd respondent on 06.02.2023, in response to which the 2nd respondent has informed the petitioner that notices under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 were issued to the 3rd respondent and that necessary action would be initiated as per law. In spite of the same, the 3rd respondent has proceeded with the construction, as such the petitioner has issued a legal notice dated 20.02.2023 bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the 3rd respondent is still continuing construction even after issuance of notices. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent in stopping the illegal constructions made by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 4. Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the Assistant City Planner-III, dated 23.01.2025 wherein it is stated that upon receipt of the complaint from the petitioner and after inspecting the premises, a notice dated 04.02.2023 was issued to the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent was sanctioned building permission on 22.11.2022 for construction of Ground+2 floors residential building, but, the 3rd respondent has deviated from the approved plan in respect of setbacks. It is also stated that action was already initiated by issuing notice under Section 452(1) of MC Act, 1955 and thereafter, deviations were confirmed in confirmation notice issued under Section 452(2) of MC Act, 1955. As per provisions of Section 452(1)(b) an opportunity of hearing was also provided to the 3rd respondent for which the petitioner has also attended on 11.12.2023, wherein the 3rd respondent has agreed to remove the wall, constructed in the setback area and to shift it to inner side. On 12.12.2023, to restore the setback, the staff of the respondent corporation visited the 3rd respondent and have attempted to remove the same, but, on the request made by the 3rd respondent and with the consent of the representative of the petitioner, the respondent’s staff left the site. It is stated that as of now, the 3rd respondent shifted the wall portion to the inner side, leaving one meter gap towards the petitioner’s property and the other sides were not restored. Therefore, it is being contemplated to file prosecution against the 3rd respondent and necessary notices were issued to that effect. As necessary action was already initiated, learned Standing Counsel has requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. As per the above instructions, it can be seen that in pursuance of the complaint filed by the petitioner on the 3rd respondent, action was already initiated by issuing notices under Sections 452(1) and 452(2) of MC Act, 1955 on 20.02.2023. It can also be seen that the 3rd respondent was afforded an opportunity of hearing in the presence of the petitioner herein, wherein the 3rd respondent has agreed to remove the wall constructed in the setback area and to shift the same to the inner side. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has shifted the wall portion to the inner side, leaving one meter gap towards the petitioner’s property, however, the other sides were not restored yet. As such, the respondents are contemplating to file prosecution against the 3rd respondent and necessary notices were also issued to the 3rd respondent. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to proceed further in initiating further course of action against the 3rd respondent in pursuance of the notices issued under Sections 452(1) and 452 (2) of MC Act, 1955 on 20.02.2023, in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:23.01.2025 Gss