IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT i THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 1423 OF 2025 Between: Dr. Meda Kumara Gupta, S/o Meda Veerendra Gupta, aged about 87 years. Occupation RMP Doctor D.No.19/429,S.F.S Street, Kadapa Town and District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi Village, Guntur District. 2. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, reptd by its Commissioner. 3. The Circle Inspector of Police, I Town, P.S. Kadapa 4. Meda Narasimhulu, S/o Narasimhulu, aged about 29 years. Business, D.No.19/767, Jumma Masjid street, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that iri the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order proceedings or a direction or a writ one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2/kadapa municipal corporation kadapa in allowing the Respondent no.4 in making constructions, alterations etc. in/for his house bearing door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without valid permission, valid approval of a plan etc., from the Municipal Corporation kadapa authorities/R2,as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 not to allow the Respondent no.4 from making any r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1423 OF 2025 '‘’V \ Between: JV- Meda Kumara Gupta, S/o Meda Veerendra Gupta, aged about 87 Occupation RMP Doctor D.No.19/429,S.F.S Street, Kadapa Town and District years ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi Village, Guntur District. 2. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, reptd by its Commissioner. 3. The Circle Inspector of Police, I Town, P.S. Kadapa 4. Meda Narasimhulu, S/o Narasimhulu, aged about 29 years. Business, D.No.19/767, Jumma Masjid street, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order proceedings or a direction or a writ one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2/kadapa no.4 in making constructions, alterations etc. in/for his house bearing door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without valid municipal corporation kadapa in allowing the Respondent permission, valid from the Municipal Corporation kadapa and consequently direct no.4 from making any approval of a plan etc. authorities/R2,as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional the respondent nos.2 not to allow the Respondent type of construction/s. alterations etc..for/in his house bearing 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district permission and approval of plan from the municipal authorities. door no. without valid 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 respondent nos 4 to not to make any construction/s or alterations etc., for/in his house bearing no.door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. S. BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4:— The Court made the following: ORDER r APHC010026712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1423/2025 Between: Meda Kumara Gupta ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SS BHATT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...to issue an order proceedings or a direction or a writ one in the nature of mandamus deciaring the action of the respondent No. 2/ kadapa municipal corportion kadapa in allowing the Respondent no.4 in making, constructions alterations etc. in/for his house bearing door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without valid permission, valid approval of a plan etc., from the Municipal Corporation kadapa authorities/R2, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent no.2 not to allow the Respondent no.4 from making any type of construction/s, alterations etc., for/in his house bearing door 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without valid permission and approval of plan from the municipal authorities and to pass... ” The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and resident of D.No.19/429, S.F.S. Street which falls under the limits of the Secretariat (Sachivalayam) No.29/2, Kadapa City & District having purchased the subject property on 05.12.1968, through a registered sale deed wherein the respondent No.4 and his family are also residing in the western side of the petitioner’s house and both the houses of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 were 100 years and 40 years old respectively. no. 2. While the matter being so, in the first week of July, 2024, in the absence 3. of the petitioner and his family members, the respondent No.4, without intimating the petitioner had started scraping the western side wall for Upon knowing the same, when the constructing a fresh wall in his site, petitioner and his family members questioned the respondent No.4, he promised the petitioner that he would re-construct the scrapped western side wall of the petitioner, but had failed to comply with his promise. Thereafter, on verification, the petitioner got to know that the respondent No.4 without obtaining the necessary permission from the Municipal authorities is carrying out the said construction. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, if at all the western side wall of the petitioner’s house is fully scraped, then the bathrooms and the sewage pipes of the petitioner’s house would be affected, as the said building is an 100 years old one and further, when the petitioner asked the respondent No.4 to show the building permission, the No.4 refused to show the respondent same. Alleging the same, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent No.2, but as no action has been initiated by the respondent No.2, the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent No.3 and perused the material available record. on 5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has furnished instructions dated 21.01.2025, issued by the City Planner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, wherein it is stated that the office of the City Planner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation has identified the unauthorized construction the 4‘'^ respondent and a preliminary notice dated 10.05.2024 seeking explanation, to which the 4*^ respondent has submitted an explanation stating that he has paid the fee of Rs.3,000/-, for regularizing the said construction but, however, as the site area in question is too small to an extent of 27.54 square meters and it does a copy of made by was issued not meet the minimum site requirement, not granted any building plan approval for the 4^'^ respondent. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition as it is devoid of merits. area 6. It is clear from the said instructions that respondent No.4 has made certain unauthorized constructions, in pursuance of which, preliminary notice was issued and respondent No.4 has paid fee of Rs.3,000/- seeking regularization of construction, which in fact is pending for consideration before respondent No.2. In view of the above, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.2 to initiate further action in accordance with law in pursuance of the preliminary notice issued on 10.05.2024 as early as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 7. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Guntur District'. 2. The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa. 3. The Circle Inspector of Police, I town PS kadapa 4. One CC to Sri S. S. Bhatt, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipal Corporation[OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. 1. ssb .■if*if* HIGH COURT DATED:21/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1423 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS