APHC010596002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30731/2025 Between: Vadakattu Harika ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Ld. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. Sri A.S.C. Bose, Ld. Standing counsel for R.3 The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.30731 OF 2025 Date of order: 06.11.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.30731 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is the second round of litigation filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P. No.17830 of 2025, being aggrieved by the confirmation order, dt.09.07.2025, passed by the 3rd respondent therein. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken the property belonging to respondents 4 and 5 on oral lease for running a restaurant. It is submitted that the petitioner had erected certain temporary structures for carrying on the said business. While the oral lease was in subsistence, respondents 4 and 5 have got issued the proceedings through the 3rd respondent, calling upon the petitioner to demolish the alleged unauthorized structures. In the said confirmation order, it was noted that the petitioner had not submitted any reply. However, the petitioner asserts that a reply to the show cause notice had, in fact, been submitted but was not duly considered. This Court, by its order dt.14.07.2025, had set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the 3rd respondent not to disturb the possession of the petitioner without following due process of law. 3. It is now submitted that the 3rd respondent has again issued a confirmation order dt.31.10.2025 pursuant to the show cause notice. It -3- W.P. No.30731 OF 2025 Date of order: 06.11.2025 is stated in the said order that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a detailed reply was in fact submitted on 07.07.2025 in response to the provisional order dt.30.06.2025, but the same was not taken into consideration while passing the subsequent confirmation order dt.31.10.2025. The impugned proceedings would show that the 3rd respondent has not taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the 3rd respondent has intentionally issued these proceedings to aid the petitioner, enabling him to continue the possession of the premises. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 148 of 2025 seeking an injunction against respondents 4 and 5, while the respondents 4 and 5 have filed O.S. No.788 of 2025 seeking eviction of the petitioner. Both civil suits are pending consideration. 6. Be that as it may, after considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceeding deserves to be set aside on the ground that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not duly considered. Needless to mention that the 3rd respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. -4- W.P. No.30731 OF 2025 Date of order: 06.11.2025 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV