APHC010023202014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24570/2014 Between: D. Veeranjaneyulu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Pri Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALASWAMI 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2 The Court made the following order: The Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing notice dated 22.08.2014 vide UCB BA No.4/2014/B0-I and trying to demolish the petitioner house bearing No.1-4-185/3, RS.No.33/2, Near Masjid Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada Krishna District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and violation of Principles of natural justice and violation of Provisions of HMC Act., 1955 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner house and pass…” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house plot admeasuring 101 sq.yards situated in RS.No.33/2, near Masjid Street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Having purchased the same by way of a Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1863 in the year 1987, the petitioner herein has constructed a house for residential purpose after duly obtaining permission from the respondent No.2 on 21.10.2013 and thereafter the respondent No.2 has also allotted door number vide D.No.1-4-185/3 to the petitioner’s house. 3. The case of the petitioner is that though he has not made any construction in deviation to the building permission, the respondent No.2 has issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 452 of HMC Act, 1955 stating that he is making construction by deviating the sanctioned plan, for which the petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 02.08.2014. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the said explanation submitted by 3 him, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 22.08.2014 directing the petitioner to remove the illegal constructions within twenty four hours of the said notice, challenging which the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. When the matter came up for admission on 25.08.2014, this Court passed the following interim order: “….Interim Direction as prayed for.” 6. The learned Standing counsel representing the respondent No.2 has furnished a copy of instructions of Deputy City Planner, Circle-1, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada vide Rc.No.G5/122529/2024, dated 22.01.2025. Wherein, it is stated that the petitioner himself submitted a representation to the respondent Corporation on 02.08.2014 stating that he was encroached into others land and also informed that he is ready to pay any penalty imposed by Government to regularize the said occupied land. It is further stated that though the petitioner was issued notice on 30.07.2014 directing to submit explanation for making certain deviations, the petitioner failed to submit the explanation to the said notice, have approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition and obtained interim order. 7. On perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner it can be seen that though petitioner’s claims to have submitted explanation on 02.08.2014 in pursuance of notice issued by the respondent No.2 on 30.07.2014, the same does not contain any endorsement to prove that it has been endorsed by the 4 respondent No.2 herein. Even on the other side the impugned notice also does not disclose as to whether any explanation submitted by the petitioner have been received by the respondents or not. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, instead of keeping this Writ Petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.2 to conduct a fresh inquiry as to whether the petitioner has made construction by deviating the plan which was obtained in the year 2013 and thereafter, issue a fresh notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation and then initiate further action. Till such time respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners possession. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.01.2025 SNI 5 335 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24570 of 2014 Date: 22.01.2025 SNI