IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1398 OF 2025 Between: 1. Smt. Sandireddy Eswaramma, wife of Sandireddy Venkata Subba Reddy, aged about 60 years, Door No.27/1/1141, Chipurukatta Sangam, Revenue Ward No.27-1, Nellore City. 2. Smt, Cherukupalli Sayamma, wife of iate Cherukupaiii Bramha Reddy aged about 85 years, Door No.27/1/114l Revenue Ward No.27-1, Nellore City Chipurukatta Sangam ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Nellore Municipal Corporation City, SPSR Nellore District, ‘^“"’'"'ssioner, of NeHore Municipal Corporation Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore ...Respondents of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the issuance of the proceedings vide ROC.NO. 15/1031/NLR/UC/2024 dated 18.01.2025 by the 3rd respohdent, directing to remove constructions within 24 hours or otherwise, the department will demolish is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court to all the lildia in suo motu matter In Re vs Directions in the matter of demolition of structures as reported in of 2024 SCC Online SC 3291 and also States in contrary to of APMR and proceedings vide ROC.NO. respondent and crave the scheme of APMC Act, 1955 and contrary to the scheme UDA Act 2016 and consequently set aside the 15/1031/NLR/UC/2024 dated 18.01.2025 of the 3rd leave of this Hon’ble Court to initiate against the 4th respondent in his private capacity as per the Apex Court guidelines for not following the due procedure crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to direct the 1st appropriate departmental action against the 3rd respondent and further crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to quantify the following the Apex Court as law laid down by the Apex Court. contempt of court proceedings as directed and further, respondent herein to take compensation for not lA NO: 1 OF 209.4 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances m support of the petition, the High Court may be all further proceedings vide pleased may be pleased to stay of ROC.NO. 15/1031/NLR/UC/2024 dated 18.01.2025 of the 3rd respondent by not taking any sort of coercive steps by way of demoiition of the petitioner’s house as constructed at D.No.27-1-1141, Ward No. Chipurukatta Sangam, Nellore, pending disposal petition. 15, of the above said writ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMIN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A S C BOSE SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010025622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1398/2025 Between: Smt. Sandireddy Eswaramma and others ...PETITIONER{S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VSURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2.GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 3.GP MUNCIPALADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following; ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following relief: of India to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the issuance of the proceedings vide ROC No.15/1031/NLR/UC/2024 dated 18.01.2025 by the 3'^ respondent, directing to remove constructions within 24 hours or otherwise, the department will demolish is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court to all the States In India in suo motu matter “In Re vs Directions in the matter of demolition of structures’’ as reported in of 2024 SCO OnLine SC 3291 and also contrary to the scheme of APMC 1955 and contrary to the scheme of APMR and UDA Act 2016 consequently set aside the proceedings RCC.No.15/1031/NLR/UC/2024 dated 18.01.2025 of the 3rd respondent and crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the 4'" respondent in his private capacity as per the Apex Court guidelines for not following the due procedure as directed and further, crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to direct the f‘ respondent herein to take appropriate departmental action against the 3^" respondent and further crave leave of this Hon ble Court to quantify the compensation for Apex Court as law laid down by the Apex Court...” The petitioners are the absolute 40.134 sq.meters of land situated Act, and vide not following the 2. owners to an extent of 5.1 ankanams or at Door No.27/1/1141, Chipurukatta Sangam, Revenue Ward No.27-1, Nellore City. The subject land has been in the possession of private individuals since 1975, and it was purchased by the petitioner's husband from his vendors, namely Vellampali Lakshmidevamma and Venkata Chalapathirao on 27.02.1991. The Tahsildar, Nellore Urban Mandal, Nellore City has also issued a certificate of residence in favour of the petitioner and her mother on 04.03.2022, confirming that the petitioners are in i 3 absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner’s husband has been paying the property tax for the last 14 years. It is also the case of the petitioners that the subject land is a poramboke 3. land which is under the control of the Irrigation Department. However, it has been under the control of private persons for the last 50 years and is developed into a colony consisting of 100 houses. When the respondents No.2 to 4 herein issued a provisional notice dated 23.08.2024to the petitioner on the ground that he has indulged in unauthorized construction in the said premises, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.19101 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court’s order dated 09.09.2024, reads as under; “In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit her additional explanation if any enclosing all the necessary documents in support of her claim in continuation of the earlier explanation dated 28.08.2024 to the above said provisional order dated 23.08.2024 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said provisional order dated 23.08.2024 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject building construction, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive steps and there shall not be any further construction. ” In pursuance of the above said orders passed by this Court on 09.09.2024, the 3^^ respondent/Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation passed the present impugned orders dated 18.01.2025, directing the 1 petitioner to remove unauthorized constructions within a period of 24 hours from the date of the said order, failing which, the same will be removed by the 4. St 4 Department and the expenses incurred thereof will be recovered from the encroacher i.e., the petitioner herein, under the powers conferred under Section 461(3) & APMC Act, 1955 and Section 91 of APM RUDA Act, 2016, which is under challenge before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order would show that in pursuance of the 6. orders passed by this Court on 09.09.2024, the writ petitioner was directed to attend a personal hearing on 09.01.2025 at 11.00 am in the Chambers of the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, and was also instructed to produce all relevant records or available documents. On the said date, on behalf of the 1®* petitioner, her son by name S.Bala Krishna attended the hearing in the said chambers and submitted the residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nellore Urban Mandal along with the tax receipts. After verifying the connected records and hearing the case, it was noticed that the land in Sy.No.1473 is classified as canal poramboke, as per the revenue records reported by the Town Surveyor. As encroachments made on canals rivers and tanks are highly objectionable and subject to eviction as per the orders issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court in several cases. i 5 The residence certificate furnished by the petitioner indicates that the petitioner is residing in Sy.No.473, but whereas the sist receipts produced by the petitioner do not relate to Sy.No.1473. But however the petitioner has raised G+1 commercial building in Sy.No.1473 without obtaining any building permission or filing any online building permission application. As the sist receipts and residence certificate do not confirm any right or title over the said land, and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 14.09.2022 in W.P.(PIL) No.140/2022 and several other PILs and writ petitions, the respondents were directed to evict unauthorized encroachments and constructions made on government lands, after duly affording an opportunity to the encroachers. Accordingly, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing and the documents produced are insufficient to confirm her right and title to the site existing in Sy.No.1473 of Nellore Bit-ll Village, the present impugned orders were passed by the 3''* respondent under the powers conferred under Section 636 of the APMC Act, 1955 and Section 84(5), 88, 89(1) (2), 90 & 91 of APMR UDA Act, 2016, directing the petitioner to the unauthorized constructions within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the order. 7. remove The present writ petition was moved by way of Lunch Motion 21.01.2025, however, at request of learned Standing Counsel, to obtain instructions in the present case, the matter was directed to be posted 8. on on 6 22.01.2025 in the Motion List. The learned Standing Counsel was orally directed to inform the concerned officers not to take coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 18.01.2025. Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 22.01.2025, after hearing both learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel, and on verifying the impugned proceedings, this Court could understand that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing and on verification of the documents including the residence certificate as well as tax receipts submitted by them as it was found that the survey number in the residence certificate did not tally with the tax receipts, the 3'"* respondent has passed the impugned order to remove the constructions made by the petitioners over the canal poramboke. Therefore, this Court has directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to obtain instructions from the petitioners as to how much time they would require to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 24.01.2025. On which date the learned counsel sought further time to file an affidavit signed by the petitioners stating that they need three months time to vacate the said premises. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 29.01.2025 for filing of such an affidavit. When the matter was listed on 29.01.2025, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners filed a memo dated 28.01.2025, duly enclosing a copy of the photographs to establish that that the respondents had demolished the building constructed’by the petitioners on 27.01.2025, even 9. 7 without following due process of law. As such, this Court has directed the 3'"^ respondent to appear before the Court on 05.02.2025 and explain how the construction was demolished despite the oral instructions given to the learned Standing Counsel on 22.01.2025. 10. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the 3'^ respondent appeared before this Court and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the 3'^^ respondent informed this Court that the 3rd respondent admitted that, on 21.01.2025, as directed by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel had orally instructed the 3rd respondent not to take any coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned orders. However, as there was no specific written interim direction from this Court not to take any coercive steps, the 3rd respondent proceeded to demolish the structures raised by the petitioners, in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dated 18.01.2025. Admittedly, no interim order was passed by this Court, but only on 21.01.2025 this Court has orally instructed the learned Standing Counsel to inform the concerned officer not to take any coercive steps. However, thereafter the matter was adjourned at request of learned Standing Counsel for obtaining instructions as well as filing of an affidavit by the petitioners regarding the time required to vacate the premises and in the meantime since there is no interim order, the authorities demolished the subject building 11. on 27.01.2025. 8 r In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the building has 12. already been demolished on 27.01.2025, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause survives. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. However, the petitioners are at 13. liberty to claim for damages for demolishing the said structures. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. V Surendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. A S C Bose SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admin and Urban Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.1398 of 2025 X 2 8 MAK 2(1?^ I ‘ ^ . Curreni ciecuon , ^ OF CLOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS