APHC010585332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30346/2025 Between: Vijayarao Madusudhana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GRANDHI PRIYANKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.30346 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the notice dated 23.10.2025. It is submitted that the notice issued under Sections 405 and 406 of AP Municipalities Act, 1955 is more contradictory in nature directing the petitioner to remove the A.C. Sheet Car Shed allegedly situated over the Layout Road within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the area over which the petitioner has erected a temporary shed belongs to the vendor of the petitioner and the vendor of the petitioner had granted access to use the said area for ingress and egress. It is submitted that the said portion of land is abutting the road and that the temporary shed erected thereon does not hinder the right of access to any one nor does it cause any obstruction to the residents of the locality. 3. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner has erected temporary shed on the road margin in the year 2021 and that the respondent authorities had removed the shed at that point of time, which was subsequently re- constructed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said portion of land falls within the road margin and is abutting a 40 feet road on the northern side and 25 feet road on the eastern side. The learned standing counsel also submits that, even as per the sale deed the southern boundary of the schedule property is Plot No.12 and that the petitioner has only a right of access to approach the road and not to raise any construction thereon. 4. Considering the layout submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plot No.12 is an independent plot. There shall be an interim direction to the respondent authorities to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the impugned notice, and the 2nd respondent shall consider the reply and pass appropriate orders duly notifying the land lord of the plot No.12. 5. Considering the layout filed by the petitioner, since the Plot No.12 is an independent plot and the impugned notice is found contradictory in nature. On this ground, this Court inclined to set aside the impugned notice leaving it open for the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner and to duly inform the landlord of Plot No.12 namely, Sri.P.Ramakrishnaiah or his representatives, while considering the reply of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, there shall be no coercive steps against the property of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 268 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.30346 of 2025 Dated 04.11.2025 KGM