APHC010361302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18589/2023 Between: G Indirani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. KOMMASANI SRINIVASULA REDDY SC FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES The Court made the following order: Questioning the notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated 06.07.2023, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat, Miss Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department. No representation for 2nd respondent(NUDA). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, respondent No.3 has issued notice dated 06.07.2023 to the petitioner alleging that the Gram Panchayat has the power to grant permission for building construction only upto G+2 and the petitioner has to get permission from NUDA for G+3 construction and advised to submit appropriate documents related to G+3 construction to NUDA and obtain approvals from them. To the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his written reply. Learned counsel further submitted that surprisingly, on the very same day, respondent No.3 has issued another notice alleging that the petitioner has constructed the unauthorized building in violation of building regulations and the said unauthorized constructions would be removed by respondent No.3 by 10.07.2023. He further submitted that, without passing any order on the written reply given by the petitioner, issuing second notice on the same day is unwarranted and contrary to the settled principles of law. In view of the same, the order impunged is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that recently the Government has brought a new scheme for regularization of unauthorized constructions and the petitioner to taking steps to apply for the regularization of the 3rd floor which was constructed beyond G+2 permission. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel contended that, having obtained permission for construction of G+2 building, the petitioner has raised the 3rd floor without obtaining requisite permission as such, issued the impugned notice dated 06.07.2023. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has every power to demolish the same by treating the 3rd floor as unauthorized construction by virtue of G.O.Ms.NO.67 dated 26.02.2002. As such no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioner has constructed the third floor without obtaining requisite permission from the concerned authority. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice nowhere specifies that a prior show-cause notice has been issued inviting explanation and providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This shows that the respondents have violated the ‘audi alteram partem’ principle. In view of the same, the impugned notice has to be set aside. 7. However, in view of the submission that the petitioner has an intention to make application for regularization of the unauthorized construction, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. The impugned notice dated 06.07.2023 is hereby set aside. ii. The petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application for regularization of the unauthorized construction to the competent authority as per the scheme in force, if any, within two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii. If any such scheme for regularization of unauthorized constructions is in force and the petitioner has made an application to the respondent authority concerned in that regard, the petitioner shall inform the same to the Gram Panchayat by duly enclosing the copy of the application and fee paid towards it. iv. On receipt of the same, the respondent authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. v. If no application is filed for regularization as stated supra, the Gram Panchayat shall take steps against the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner by issuing proper show-cause notice inviting explanation and providing an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the concerned parties. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS