APHC010533602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO WRIT PETITION NO: 27859/2025 Between: 1. KATARI VENKATESWRAMMA, W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, SRI SRINIVAS AVENUE, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA GARDENS, D.NO. 6 DISTRICT. 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF AP, GOVERNMENT OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGA PUDI, AMARAVATHI. AP 2. THE TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY IT'S COMMISSIONER TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALTY, TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. YEMENI VAMSI MOHAN, S/O SUBASH CHANDRABOSE, AGED 50 YRS FLAT NO. 404, SRI SRINIVASAAVENUE, D.NO. 6 GARDENS, TADIGADAPA, (M) KRISHNA DIST Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V A PADMANABHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K K DURGA PRASAD 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP WRIT PETITION NO: 27870/2025 Between: 1. KATARI NALINI, W/O K.MAHESH BABU, ABOUT 37 YRS, SRI SRINIVAS AVENUE, FLAT NO GARDENS, D.NO 6 DISTRICT. 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF AP, GOVERNMENT OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 27859 and 27870/2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 27859/2025 KATARI VENKATESWRAMMA, W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, SRI SRINIVAS AVENUE, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA GARDENS, D.NO. 6-3-82, TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF AP, GOVERNMENT OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGA PUDI, THE TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY IT'S COMMISSIONER TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALTY, TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. YEMENI VAMSI MOHAN, S/O SUBASH CHANDRABOSE, AGED 50 YRS FLAT NO. 404, SRI SRINIVASAAVENUE, D.NO. 6 GARDENS, TADIGADAPA, (M) KRISHNA DIST ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: P V A PADMANABHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): K K DURGA PRASAD GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP WRIT PETITION NO: 27870/2025 KATARI NALINI, W/O K.MAHESH BABU, ABOUT 37 YRS, SRI SRINIVAS AVENUE, FLAT NO-602, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA GARDENS, D.NO 6-3-82, TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF AP, GOVERNMENT OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N /2025 KATARI VENKATESWRAMMA, W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, SRI SRINIVAS AVENUE, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA 82, TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF AP, GOVERNMENT OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGA PUDI, THE TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY IT'S COMMISSIONER THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALTY, YEMENI VAMSI MOHAN, S/O SUBASH CHANDRABOSE, AGED 50 YRS FLAT NO. 404, SRI SRINIVASAAVENUE, D.NO. 6-3-82, LVS ...RESPONDENT(S): KATARI NALINI, W/O K.MAHESH BABU, ABOUT 37 YRS, SRI 602, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA 82, TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF AP, GOVERNMENT OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGA PUDI, AMARAVATHI. AP 2 2. THE TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY IT'S COMMISSIONER TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, TADIGADAPA MUNICIPALTY, TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4 4. YEMENI VAMSI MOHAN, S/O SUBASH CHANDRABOSE, AGED 50 YRS FLAT NO404, SRI SRINIVASA AVENUE, D.NO6-3-82, LVS GARDENS, TADIGADAPA, (M) KRISHNA DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V A PADMANABHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K K DURGA PRASAD 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 27859 and 27870 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notices dated 01.10.2025 issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 whereby the petitioners are directed to vacate the pent houses bearing Flat Nos.601 and 602 and pull down the same as construction of the pent houses are unauthorized. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed appeals under Section 345 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and that pending confirmation of the Appeal the impugned proceedings ought not to be issued. It is submitted that the municipal council Thadigapada Municipality would have to decide the appeals filed. It is also submitted that as the council is not in place, the appeals could not be taken up. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bonafied purchasers of the flats and that the said construction can be regularized as was done in cases of several constructions under the BPS Scheme. It is also submitted that the respondent Municipality need not resort to demolishing the flats/pent houses of the petitioners as they do not cause any hindrance to the general public. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of In.Re: Directions in the WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 matter of demolition of structures in W.P (Civil).No.292/2022. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that passed several directions while undertaking demolitions and made it mandatory the affected parties should given an opportunity of hearing and adequate time should be granted to the affected party. Apart from several other directions, relating to demolition of buildings and dwelling houses. It is submitted that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly make it mandatory for the respondent authorities to follow such directions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on the Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the matter of 3 Aces, Hyderabad vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.1 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that power to demolition under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is not a mandatory one and that power of demolition it should be resorted to when overwhelming public interest is involved. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner in W.P.No.27859 of 2025 is the wife of Katari Srinivas and the petitioner in W.P.No.27870 of 2025 is the wife of Katari Mahesh Babu. It is submitted that the husbands of the petitioners were partners of Sri Sri Constructions. It is submitted that the residential apartment complex 1 1994 SCC Online AP 176 WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 was constructed for 25 flats. The 4th respondent is purchaser of flat No.404. 7. It is also submitted that the construction of the complex was completed on land admeasuring 1155 square yards and 20 flats with 2BHK and 5 flats with 3BHK were constructed. The two bed room flats were given 42 square yards of undivided share and the three bed room flats had given 40 square feet of undivided share. It is submitted that the builders after obtaining occupancy certificate and after release of the mortgage from the respondent authorities illegally constructed two flats Flat Nos.601 and 602. It is also submitted that the builders executed sale deeds in favour of their respective wives. 8. It is submitted that the builders could not have resorted to an unauthorized construction denying terrace lights to the other flat owners. It is submitted that the petitioners have erected an iron-gate restraining access to the terrace for any of the other residents in the residential apartment. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent places reliance on M.Satyanarayana Vs. Bhimavaram Municipal Council and another2, this Court held that the unauthorized constructions would have to be demolished and no lenience can be shown to such constructions. This Court dismissed the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- vide order dated 05.07.2006. 2 2006 (6) ALT 117 WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted written instructions and submits that a notice dated 13.08.2025 was issued to the petitioners and to vacate the premises and pull down the unauthorized structure within a period of 15 days. It is submitted that the petitioners made a representation to respondents 2 and 3 on 02.09.2025 seeking an opportunity of personal hearing. The personal hearing was fixed on 08.09.2025 at 11.00AM. The petitioners did not attend the same by submitting a reply on 08.09.2025 stating that they require further time as they are out of station. Subsequent notice dated 17.09.2025 was issued to attend for personal hearing scheduled on 20.09.2025 at 11.00AM. It is also stated that the petitioners failed to attend the same and were trying to drag on the matter. It is submitted that the order dated 24.02.2024 had considered the explanation submitted by the petitioners and the stand of the petitioners seeking regularization of the structure on payment of compounding fee was also considered. It was made clear that there is no provision for regularizing the deviation made beneath the permitted water tanks. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Perused the material on record. 11. The petitioners are seeking to declare the proceedings in notice No.UC/1/2024, dated NIL-02-2024 and subsequent order dated 01.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 justice and seek a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 for considering regularization of the flats of the petitioners. 12. The petitioners have raised three grounds for seeking the relief. The petitioners have filed appeals under Section 345 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Council would have to decide the appeals. It is stated that as the Council is not in place the petitioners are entitled for interim protection pending appeal. Section 346(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 prescribes limitation of 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned proceedings. The impugned proceedings dated 24.02.2024 are challenged in the appeal stated to be filed. The limitation for filing an appeal on the impugned proceedings dated 24.02.2024 would be expiring by the end of March, 2024. The appeal could not have been filed on 06.10.2025 after lapse of 19 months from the date of issuance of the impugned order. 13. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that demolition is not mandatory in all cases of unauthorized constructions. This submission cannot be accepted, on the facts of these cases the petitioners husbands constructed residential apartment complex consisting of 25 individual residential flats and sold and the flats to various purchasers. The respondent corporation issued permissions and also issued occupancy certificate after the completion of construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The petitioners husbands subsequently after obtaining the occupancy certificate have WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 constructed two additional flats on the terrace under the water tanks without permission. The said construction is causing obstruction in use of terrace rights to the other flat owners. The terrace area is a common area for use of all flat owners. The petitioners husbands cannot take advantage of being the builders of the complex and construct additional residential flats and curtail the use of terrace by the other resident flat owners and residents. 14. The terrace rights in Andhra Pradesh are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 and the Andhra Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (AP RERA). Andhra Pradesh Apartments Act, 1987, this act specifies that all “common areas and facilities,” which include terraces unless otherwise stated, are owned collectively by apartment owners, meaning the terrace cannot be sold or assigned exclusively to any single owner unless this is clearly specified in a legally registered declaration approved by all apartment owners 15. The definition of “common areas” in Section 3(f) of the Act includes the roof and other open spaces. This ensures terraces remain available for shared use and cannot be segregated for private ownership unless the approved plan and registered declaration states otherwise. The RERA also explicitly lists terraces as common areas in Section 2(n), which includes “common basements, terraces, parks, play areas, open WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 parking areas, and storage spaces” shared by all residents, these cannot be exclusively sold to any one by the builder. 16. The claim of the petitioners that their request for regularization could be considered by the 2nd respondent is concerned, the submission of the learned standing counsel clarifies the non-availability of the scheme for regularization of the unauthorized construction. When there is no scheme in vogue for regularization of unauthorized construction no direction is issued by this Court to the respondent municipality to consider regularization of the petitioners’ flats. 17. The petitioners have not made out any case for interference as the residents of apartments would have a common right of use of the common areas in the said residential complex including the terrace. The rights of the other residents cannot be curtailed by the petitioners by resorting to an illegal construction beneath the water tanks of the building complex and denying access to other residents. The submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent regarding encroachment into the common parking area by the occupants of the unauthorized construction is causing inconvenience to other flat owners requires consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners intends to approach the Government and file a statutory appeal, both the writ petitions were disposed off on 04.08.2025, leaving it open for the official respondents to take appropriate steps. WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 18. The respondent authorities have passed a confirmation order on 24.02.2024 itself. The petitioners approached this Court and filed writ petitions 7541 and 7542 of 2024 challenging the confirmation order dated 24.02.2024. 19. The impugned proceedings in the present writ petitions are in continuation to the impugned proceedings in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioners only intend to drag on the action of demolition of the unauthorized construction on one pretext or the other. The petitioners have no right to cause hindrance in usage of common areas by the other flat residents. The execution of sale deeds by the husbands of petitioners in their favour is only for creation of vested rights over the unauthorized construction. 20. The respondent authorities would have to deal with the unauthorized constructions with iron hand more so when the rights of the other flat owners are impacted. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners do not apply to the facts of the present cases. It is not the case of the petitioners that their unauthorized construction is not causing hindrance or impacting the right of access of any third parties. Apart from the petitioners there are 25 other families residing in the said complex whose right of access to terrace are definitely affected. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for indulgence by this Court and accordingly, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. WP.Nos.27859 & 27870 of 2025 21. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 17.10.2025 KGM/PNS