IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE WRIT PETITION NO: 1185 OF :: AMARAVATI MANDAVA Between: Tanguturi Ashok Kumar, S/o.Tanguturi Venkateswarlu C. B.Road, Revenue ward No.1, Tadipatri Mandal R/o.HNo.1/533-1, Ananthapuram District, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department. Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Tadipatri Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Ananthapuram District. Secretariat, Tadipatri ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i be pleased to pass an order the nature of of India praying that in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court in may or orders or direction more particularly one in a writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd espondent herein in issuing Encroachment Notice No. 7/TPS/S-10/2024 dt. 11.12.2024, directing the Petitioner RCC Roof Tiled House of herein to remove the Petitioners an extent of Ac.48.33 Square Yards situated in Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuram District Door No.1/533-1 of C.B Road AP within 7 days, without issuing any show-cause notice to the Petitioner herein, without according any opportunity to the Petitioner Wholly illegal, arbitrary, motivated. herein, as unfair, contrary to principles of natural justice, provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, besides being violative of the Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 2 nd respondent herein not to take any coercive measures including that of demolition /dispossession of Petitioner's RCC Roof Tiled House of an extent of Ac.48.33 Square Yards situated in Door No.1/533-1 of C.B Road, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuram District, AP, during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBEN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2:M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following; ORDER rrV 'll APHC010022382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] ✓ FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 1185/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Tanguturi Ashok Kumar, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPALADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for the 2^'^ respondent. Challenging the notice issued under Sections 189, 192, 194, 336, 360 and 361 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1965, to remove the 2. encroachment, alleging that the petitioner has occupied road margin in an extent of Ac.48.33 Sq.Yds, at C.B.Road, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned proceedings have been issued without following the due procedure under law and that no show cause notice was issued prior to issuance of the impugned 3. proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, appearing for the 2"^^ respondent-Corporation, would submit that the impugned proceedings have been issued after following the due procedure under the law. However, the contention of the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued before the passing of the impugned proceedings is not disproved. In that view of the matter, the court is of the view that it is appropriate that petitioner must be put on notice before he is directed to remove the alleged encroachments, over the subject land, therefore is of the view that the petitioner may treat the impugned proceedings as show cause notice and file explanation within ten (10) days from today. On 4. 5. This court ¥ea filing of such explanation, the 2 nd respondent-corporation is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of two (2) weeks thereon, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Till passing of such orders, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject property. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SEQIiok<^\ FFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Commissioner, Tadipatri Municipality, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District. One CC to M/s. CKR Associates, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalities[OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER * 2 2 JAN 2025 ^ Curreat Section . ^ WP.No.1185 of 2025 \o Co. DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS