1 APHC010030182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1613/2025 Between: Kamble Bengli Murali Krishna ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANANTAIAH PARAMKUSAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in preventing the unauthorized construction undertaken by the 4th Respondent to construct the mosque in Door No.16-3-427/1, Near Railway Station, Rayadurgam, Ananthapuram District, without permission from the concerned authorities and also failure to act on the representation dated 18.04.2024, submitted by the petitioner, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to procedure, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to stop the unauthorized construction undertaken by the 4th respondent forthwith in Door No.16-3-427/1, Near Railway Station, Rayadurgam, Ananthapuram District...” 2. The present writ petition is challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not taking any action on the complaint made by the petitioner on 18.04.2024 to the 3rd respondent with regard to the unauthorized construction undertaken by the 4th respondent at Door No.16-3-427/1, Near Railway Station, Rayadurgam, Ananthapuram District, for the construction of a mosque without permission from the concerned authorities, which was endorsed by the 3rd respondent on 22.04.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for 2nd respondent and Smt.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent. 4. During hearing, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent furnished a copy of the instructions, wherein it is stated as follows: 3 “..During the site inspection and by the observation of the town planning staff, it was found that the unauthorized building construction of the ground floor by the 4th respondent constructed the commercial shop and also there were no partitions of the rooms in the ground floor and in the first floor there were only cupboards, shelves. Also, there was no structural evidence for treating the building as a Mosque. Hence, the allegations made by the petitioner that making the building a mosque is false. It is only the assumption of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the planning staff has issued Deviation notices Provisional Order Notice dated 08.04.2024 under Section 217(1) & (2) and also Confirmation Order Notice dated 24.04.2024 under Section 217(3) as per the APM Act 1965 to the 4th respondent, as the respondent has constructed the commercial building and deviated the approved sanction plan by the executive authority. The 3rd respondent has taken appropriate action on the approved building as per the powers vested to him in the APM Act 1965. Further, it is once again submitted that the 4th respondent has constructed an additional building unauthorizedly in the remaining site area measuring E-W-23 Feet and N-S-26 feet. So, the town planning staff has issued unauthorized construction notices i.e., Provisional Order Notice under Section 228(1) & (2) dated 19.04.2024 and also Confirmation Order Notice under Section 228(3) dated 29.04.2024 as per the APM Act 1965. Further, the unauthorized construction of the G+1 building has already stopped and there has been no work going on for one year. The photos of the ground position are herewith enclosed which shows that the building construction was stopped with unfinished for a long back. And it is also showing the structural evidence that it is not a mosque. 5. In view of the above instructions, it is clear that the respondent authorities have already initiated action against the 4th respondent for making unauthorized construction, deviating from the approved sanctioned plan. The authorities issued both a provisional notice and a final notice to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, upon identifying additional unauthorized construction on the remaining site area, they issued further notices i.e., provisional notice under Section 228(1) & (2) on 19.04.2024 and confirmation notice under Section 228(3) on 29.04.2024 as per the APM Act 1965. It can also be 4 understood that the unauthorized construction of the G+1 building made by the 4th respondent has already been stopped, and as of today, no work is going on for the past one year. It is further clear that the 4th respondent is not constructing any Mosque in said area, and it is only a commercial building and as such action has been initiated by the respondent authorities also. In addition, it can be noted that the representation made by the petitioner on 18.04.2024 was endorsed by respondent No.3 on 22.04.2024. The petitioner was also informed that in response to his complaint, the construction of the building had been stopped, having found certain irregular constructions due to lack of municipal approval has stopped the construction of the building. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the building owner i.e., 4th respondent herein under Section 228(1), (2) and (3) as per the APM Act 1965. 6. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the same by directing the 3rd respondent to initiate further action against the 4th respondent, pursuant to the confirmation notice dated 29.04.2024, in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2025 KGR