IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION NO: 10870/2025 and 26019 of 2024 %08.10.2025 WP.No.10870 of 2025 Between: NEELAM NAGENDRA PRASAD ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP WP.No.26019/2024 Between: PATHAGOLUSU SUDARSHAN PRASAD ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M R S SRINIVAS 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2008) 12 SCC 481 This Court made the following: WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION NO: 10870/2025 and 26019 of 2024 WP.No.10870 of 2025 Between: NEELAM NAGENDRA PRASAD ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP WP.No.26019/2024 Between: PATHAGOLUSU SUDARSHAN PRASAD ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S): DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 08.10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 APHC010503802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26019/2024 Between: 1. PATHAGOLUSU SUDARSHAN PRASAD, S/O.GANGA RAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O.9-13-129, NEAR SUBBARAJU PETA, JYOTHI COLONY CENTRE, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VADDESWARAM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT TOWN AND COUNTRY OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE NIDADAVOLE MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. 5. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, NIDADAVOLE MUNICIPALITY, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. 6. THE IDBI BANK, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400005. 7. THE IDBI BANK, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520010, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. NEELAM NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/O.NAGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-2-1 TO 72, MALLAVARAPU VARI STREET, REVENUE WARD NO.7, LH ROAD, NIDADAVOLE, NIDADAVOLE MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the official respondents on the Representation/Legal Notice dated 01/10/2024 submitted by the petitioner to the official respondents particularly to the Respondents 4 AND 5 with a request to take necessary action against the unofficial Respondent No.8 for making unauthorized construction i.e.. Commercial Building (Shops) contrary to Building Permit No. 1078/0113/B/Nidadhavole/LMHSPTLRD/2023 dated 29/02/2024, at Door No.7-2-1 to 14, Mallavarapu Veedhi, Revenue Ward No.7, LFI Road, Nidadavole, East Godavari (erstwhile West Godavari) District without leaving setbacks, laying extra floor and without leaving space for parking which is mandatory for construction of Commercial Building i.e.. Shops abutting to the main road and four roads junction in the Town by simply issuing Provisional Order Notice, dated 04-09-2024 and Confirmation Order Notice, dated 17-09- 2024 without any further action, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violation of provisions of Municipalities Act and to consequently direct the official respondents to demolish the same and to take necessary action against the unofficial respondent No.8 according to law for such unauthorized, high handed and illegal construction and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to pass an interim direction against the official respondents to take necessary action against the unofficial respondent No.8 for his unauthorized construction i.e.. Commercial Building contrary(Shops) Building No. 1078/0113/B/Nidadhavole/LMHSPTLRD/2023 dated 29/02/2024, at Door to Permit No.7-2-1 to 14, Mallavarapu Veedhi, Revenue Ward No.7, LH Road, Nidadavole, East Godavari (erstwhile West Godavari) District without leaving setbacks, laying extra floor and without leaving space for parking which is mandatory for construction of Commercial Building i.e.. Shops abutting to the main road and four roads junction in the Town, and to demolish the same and to deal with him according to law pursuant to the Provisional Order Notice dated; 04-09-2024 and Confirmation Order Notice dated: 17-09-2024, in the interest of justice during the pendency of the above writ petition and to pass WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Grant Leave to me to file counter in the above W.P.No.26019 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M R S SRINIVAS 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 APHC010218492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10870/2025 Between: 1. NEELAM NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/O NAGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-17-16/2, SANTHINAGAR, NIDADAVOLE TOWN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE NIDADAVOLE MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER TOWN PLANNING SECTION, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the conformation orders issued by the Respondent No.2 vide bearing Notice No.7/1078/NDV/UC/2025 dated 23.01.2025 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in utter violation of Principles of Natural Justice besides being contrary to the provisions contemplated under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and Rules made thereunder and consequently to set-aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to desist the Respondents from taking any further action by suspending the Notice No.7/1078/NDV/UC/2025 dated 23.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 and pass WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioners/ impleading proposed respondents party respondents in the present main WP No; 10870/2025 including all miscellaneous applications to prosecute the case to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to modify the Order dated 07.05.2025 in W.P.No. 13870 of 2025 in so far as directing the Petitioner to not give the premises to any parties pending disposal of the Writ Petition is concerned and/or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 COMMON ORDER : 1. WP.No.26019 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on part of the respondent authorities against the unauthorized construction of respondent No.8. 2. WP.No.10870 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner challenging the confirmation orders dated 23.01.2025, whereby the Nidadavole Municipality has determined the construction of the petitioner as unauthorized. In view of the confirmation orders passed by the Nidadavole Municipality on 23.01.2025, the cause in the WP.No.26019 of 2024 would not survive any further. Accordingly, WP.No.26019 of 2024 can be closed. 3. The petitioner in WP.No.10870 of 2025 had obtained permission for construction vide permit No.1078/0113/B/ Nidadavole/ LMHSPTLRD/2023, dated 29.02.2024 for construction of stilt + ground + two floors in an extent of land admeasuring 288.34 Square yards for the purpose of commercial use. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner constructed the building as per the sanctioned plan, however, the show cause notice dated 04.09.2024 was issued by the 2nd respondent seeking an explanation as to why the unauthorized construction should not be removed within a period of seven days. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted an WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 explanation on 09.09.2024. The 2nd respondent passed orders of confirmation on 17.09.2024 stating that the petitioner had not submitted any explanation. It is submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.24356 of 2024 which was allowed on 28.10.2024. This Court set aside the confirmation orders and remanded the matter to 2nd respondent to consider the explanation dated 09.09.2024 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. 5. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 30.12.2024 and informed the petitioner about the proposed field inspection on 03.01.2025. It is submitted that though the staff of 2nd respondent visited the building of the petitioner, they did not undertake any measurements nor prepared any report. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 06.01.2025, for which a detailed reply dated 10.01.2025 was submitted. The 2nd respondent passed orders of confirmation dated 23.01.2025 without reference to the reply submitted by the petitioner. 6. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter and it is submitted that the petitioner has constructed a building in deviation to the sanctioned plan and without leaving the required set backs and also constructed the cellar floor unauthorizedly. It is submitted that the petitioner filed WP.Nos.24356 of 2024 and 24360 of 2024 which were disposed off by this Court directing the respondent WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 Municipality to consider the explanation dated 09.09.2024 submitted by the petitioner. 7. It is submitted that the field inspection was conducted by the officers of the Municipality and measurements were taken of the construction. Deviation in construction from the sanctioned plan was duly noted. It is submitted that vide notice dated 30.12.2024, the petitioner was informed of the proposed field inspection and the petitioner was personally present when the measurements were taken. It is also denied that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the notice dated 06.01.2025 as claimed. It is submitted that the alleged reply dated 10.01.2025 filed as an annexure to the writ petition was never submitted to the office and it is also submitted that the 2nd respondent office did not receive any such reply as is evident from the register. 8. It is seriously disputed by the learned standing counsel that the stamp endorsed on the alleged reply dated 10.01.2025 does not belong to the 2nd respondent as the size of the stamp is different. That apart, there is no signature of the person receiving the said reply. As such, it is submitted that the petitioner has fabricated the alleged reply dated 10.01.2025. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed unauthorizedly and resorted to filing writ petitions by misleading the Court. It is submitted that the petitioner without submitting any reply had sworn WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 to an affidavit with false averments and as such the petitioner is liable for perjury. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material available on record. 11. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit duly submitting that the petitioner is intending to remove the upper floor for complying with the building plan. It is also stated in the additional affidavit that the deviations if any would be within the permitted limits and that the cellar of the petitioner would not cause any inconvenience to the public. The petitioner has also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.08.2024 with IDBI Bank for licensing to use the premises of the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.72,500/-. The bank had also completed the interior work. 12. On account of the interim orders passed by this Court on 07.05.2025, the petitioner is restrained from giving the premises to any third parties. This Court also directed the petitioner not to proceed with any further construction. As seen from the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, the cellar floor is determined as unauthorized and there is no parking space earmarked in the present construction and the proposed parking in the cellar is in gross violation of the sanctioned plan. WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 13. Rule 6, Rule 6(2), Rule 6(30) of Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017, would have to be followed in so far as construction of the petitioner is concerned. The cellar floor could be granted for buildings constructed on a site admeasuring above 500 square meters. The petitioner’s land is admeasuring 288.34 square meters. As such, there is no dispute with regard to construction of the cellar in an unauthorized manner. The petitioner has converted the stilt floor for commercial purposes. 14. The petitioner has also filed the alleged reply dated 10.01.2025 which is disputed by the 2nd respondent. There is no rejoinder nor denial to the allegation of fabrication of the said reply by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim any equity from this Court by placing reliance on fabricated documents. That apart, the petitioner has filed IA.No.3 of 2025 by restating that the impugned orders in the writ petition were passed without considering his reply. The petitioner sought for modification of the orders as the petitioner has entered into a license agreement with IDBI Bank. Letting out the premises to a Nationalized Bank without provision for adequate parking would definitely cause inconvenience to the commuters of the road and also the bank staff and the customers visiting the bank. 15. The reply dated 10.01.2025 is disputed by the respondents. The said reply is allegedly submitted by the petitioner in the office of the WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 2nd respondent. It curiously does not bear the signature of the receiver of the document, as is the case when any document or letter is submitted in the Government Offices the dispatch clerk would endorse his signature and impress the stamp of the office on the document and enter the details of the same in the inward/dispatch register. The said reply cannot be considered as submitted by the petitioner. The font and size of the stamp on the alleged reply is also disputed as different from the regularly endorsed stamp officially by the 2nd respondent. 16. On these considerations, the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 is passed by the authorities after conducting the field inspection and after issuing a notice calling upon explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner instead of submitting the explanation has placed reliance on the alleged reply which is disputed by the 2nd respondent and filed the writ petition. This Court finds no valid grounds to interfere in the impugned proceedings on the peculiar facts of this case. Even as per the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had admittedly constructed the cellar in an unauthorized manner. The averment of the petitioner at para 5 of the affidavit that the Municipal Authorities did conduct any measurement nor did they make note of any deviation in presence of the petitioner. This averment is denied by the respondent and furnished photographs to this Court along with the counter by the respondent municipality WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 would indicate that the petitioner was present in person and was also overlooking the measurements undertaken by the municipal authorities. 17. The prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be considered as the petitioner has submitted documents which are seriously disputed as generated for the purpose of maintaining the present writ petition. A party approaching the Court would have to disclose true facts, submit genuine documents and ought not to mislead the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others1, held that the party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Courts is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. The petitioner should disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play hide and seek or to pick and choose the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts have suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the applicant who has willfully distorted the facts and mislead the Courts, the Court can suomoto initiate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act for abusing the process of Courts. 1 (2008) 12 SCC 481 WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 18. As no valid grounds are raised by the petitioner to interfere in the impugned proceedings, the WP.No.10870 of 2025 deserves to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, WP.No.10870 of 2025 is dismissed without costs and WP.No.26019 of 2024 is closed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:08.10.2025 KGM WP.Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos. 26019 of 2024 and 10870 of 2025 Date:08.10.2025 KGM