\ I 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 SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 1183 OF 2025 Between: Tanguturi Venkateswarlu, S/o.Pedda R/o.H.No.1/532, C.B Road, Revenue ward No.1, Tadipatri Mandal Ananthapuram District, A.P Sanjeeva Rayudu ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Tadipatri Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd Respondent herein in issuing Encroachment Notice No.3/TPS/S-10/2 024 dt.11.12.2024 directing the Petitioner herein to remove the RCC Roof Tiled House of an extent of Ac.0.03 Cents, situated in Door No.1/532 of C.B Road, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuram District, AP within 7 days may without issuing any show-cause notice to the Petitioner herein, without according any opportunity to the Petitioner herein, as wholly illegal, arbitrary, motivated, 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 consequentlyset-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"^ 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.0.03 Cents, situated in Door No. 1/532 of C.B Road, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuram District, AP, during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/S SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC for TADIPATRI MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010022392025 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: 1183/2025 Between: Tanguturi Venkateswarlu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPALADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) 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. 2. Challenging the notice issued under Sections 189, 192, 194, 336, 360 and 361 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1965, to remove the encroachment, alleging that the petitioner has occupied road margin in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents, at C.B.Road, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District, the ‘ present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned 3. 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 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 4. 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 5. appropriate that petitioner must be put on notice before he is directed to This court 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 filing of such explanation, the 2"^^ 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. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 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 SECTioSk^FTlCER //TRUE COPY// To 1 Tho Prinrinal Secretarv Municipal Administration and Urban ' ■ oSSenlSepaK Secretariat. Veiagapudi, Guntur D,strict. 2. The Commissioner,Tadipatri Municipality, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District. 3. OneCCto M/s CKR ASSOCIATES Advocate [OPUC] GP Muncipal Admn And Urban Dev AP ,High Court Of 4. Two CCs to • Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] to M/s Sireesha Rani V , SC for Tadipatri Municipalities 5. OneCC [OPUC]. 6. Three CD Copies AL ,1* HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1183 of 2025 1 2 <1 JAN 2025 f/3: TO Co Current Section . DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS