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: 1180 OF 2025 Between: K Govindamma, W/o. Late Kumkuma Tapela Narayana Aged about 72 years, R/o. D/o. 1/533, 1st Ward, C.B Road, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapuram, AP-515411 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, , Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, 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 may 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.6/TPS/S-10/2024 dt. 11.12.2024 directing the Petitioner herein to remove the RCC roof tiled house of an extent of 576 Sq.Ft, bearing Door No. 1/533, New Assessment No. 1974, 1 St ward C.B.Road, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District, A.P within 7 days, without issuing any show-cause notice to the Petitioner herein, without according any opportunity to the Petitioner wholly illegal, arbitrary, motivated, unfair, contrary to principles of Natural Justice, provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act being violative of the Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution consequently set-aside the same. herein, as 1965, besides of India and lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent herein in support of the petition, the High Court may be not to take any coercive measures including that of demolition /dispossession of Petitioner Roof Tiled House of s R.C.C an extent of 576 Sq.ft situated in Door No. 1/533 of C.B.Road, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuram District, A.P, during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/S SIREESHA RANI V, SC FOR TADIPATRI MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER V «5^ APHC010022372025 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: 1180/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER K Govindamma 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 encroachment, alleging that the petitioner has occupied road margin in an extent of 576 Sq.ft, at C.B.Road, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District, the present 2. / 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 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 remove nd respondent-corporation is directed to filing of such explanation, the 2 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 ASSISTANTxREGISTJtAR SECTION^^ICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner Tadipatri Municipality, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District. 3. OneCCto M/S CKR ASSOCIATES Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP For Muncipal Admn Urban Dev ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. One CC to M/s Sireesha Rani V, SC for Tadipatri Municipalities [OPUC 6. THREE CD Copies AL ■ J HIGH COURT < DATED:10/01/2025 X 2 7 JAN 2025 ^ . Current becuon ^*^^^£SPATCV;^g^ ORDER WP.No.1180 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS