IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2695 OF 2Q2fi Between: Lakshmana Samba Siva Varaprasad R/o H.No.8-329, Narlapati vari^Street 8 Ward, Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. Saamraajyalakshmi, W/o.Madhusudhana Rao, Aged about 64 years, Occ House Wife R/o.H.No.7-127, Bodduchavidi Street 7'*^ Ward Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. Shaik Chinna Mastan, S/o.Kashim Saheb, Aged about 66 vears Occ Prallallm District Vandal Rariianaiah, S/o.Malla Kondaiah, Aged about 65 vears ...Petitioners AND ^ Muriicipal 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municioal D?st?i'S^^^^^'°^ Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the the High Court may be more particularly one in the nature of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue a writ, order or direction writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in issuing the Impugned Notice, dt.22-01-2025 directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment by holding that the petitioners are in encroachment of 8.5 Sq.Yds. of road margin consisting of commercial shops bearing Nos.7/128 and 7/129 respectively situated in Mahalaxmamma Chettu Street, Ward No.7, Kanigiri Town, Prakasam District without 7/127, 7/126 following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Impugned Notice, dt.22-01-2025 issued by the 1®‘ respondent in the interest of justice. lA 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the Impugned Notice, dt.22- 01-2025 issued by the 1®' respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s V. SIREESHA RANI, SC for MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2; GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No. 2695 of 2025 Between: Smt. Naarlapati Satyavathi and others ...PETITIONER AND The Kanigiri Municipality and another Counsel for the Petitioners: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.P. NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SMT. SIREESHA,STANDINGCOUNSEL 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: is filed .... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents issuing the Impugned Notice, dt.22-01-2025 directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment by holding that petitioners are in encroachment of 8.5. Sq.Yds. of road in the margin consisting of commercial shops bearing Nos. 7/128, 7/127, 7/126 & 7/129 respectively situated In Mahalaxmamma Chettu Street, Ward No. 7, Kanigirl Town, Prakasam District without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Impugned Notice, dt.22-01-2025 issued by the f respondent in the interest ofJustice." ’ 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioners claim to the owners of shops bearing Nos.7/128, 7/127, 7/126 & 7/129 respectively situated at Bodduchavidi Centre Chettu Street, Ward No.7, Kanigiri Town, Prakasam District. respondent No.1 Mahalaxmamma Earlier, when the 1"' respondent-Municipality tried to demolish their shops without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25796 of 2024 and the said writ petition was disposed of. by order dated 12.11.2024, directing the respondent authorities follow the due process of law with respect to the subject shops. Now. it is the grievance of the petitioners that without issuing any show- cause notice to them and without calling for their explanation the earlier order of this Court, the 1^^ respondent-Municipality has straightaway to 4. in pursuance of 3 issued Notice dated 22.01.2025 directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments in the road margin of Mahalaxmamma Street within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, or otherwise, they will take steps to remove the encroachment. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. Today, when the matter is moved by way of house motion, Smt. Sireesha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, on written respondent- Municipality, submits after the order in the earlier writ petition was passed, the respondent has issued Notice dated 22.01.2025 directing them to remove the encroachments within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, to which the petitioners have not responded by removing the encroachment and hence, final notice dated 31.01.2025 under Sections 360 and 361 of the A.P.M. Act 1965 was issued, instructing the petitioners to remove the encroachment within 24 hours from the date of the said notice, failing which the 1®‘ respondent would take steps to remove the encroachment and collect the charges incurred from the petitioners. It is submitted that the said notice dated 31.01.2025 was served on the petitioners on the same day. It is further submitted that as the petitioners have not complied with the directions, the 1®‘ respondent office has initially removed the steps on 01.02.2025 in the road margin since the building is in dilapidated condition and the building will be demolished as per procedure. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that, by order 5. instructions received from the Commissioner of the 1 6. dated 12.11.2024 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners i.e.. 4 W.P.No.25796 of 2024, this Court has specifically directed the respondents follow the due process of law with respect to the subject shops, can be seen from the notice dated 22.01.2025 coupled with the written instructions of the respondent itself, it is evident that the 1®' respondent, in the said notice dated 22.01.2025, has directed the petitioners to encroachment in the road margin within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thus, though it is styled as a notice, it is an order directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments without issuing any prior notice and calling for an explanation from the petitioners, which is in violation of the due procedure as well as the earlier order passed by this Court. Further, from the written instructions, it is also evident that the 1 another notice dated 31.01.2025 directing the petitioners encroachment within 24 hours from the date of notice and even demolished steps portion of the buildings on 01.02.2025, which is in complete violation of the earlier order of this Court. Since the 1®' respondent has not followed the due t failed to issue to However, as remove the respondent has also issued to remove the 7. process of law and a show-cause notice to the petitioners, calling for their explanation, and straightaway issued notice dated 22.01.2025 directing the seven days, which is in 12.11.2024 passed in it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their explanation, by treating the notice dated 22.01.2025 as a show-cause notice. petitioners to remove the encroachments within violation of the earlier order of this Court, dated W.P.No.25796 of 2024, this Court deems earlier ' ♦ 5 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit their explanation to the notice dated 22.01.2025, by treating it as a show-cause notice, duly enclosing the documents in support of their title to the subject properties, within a period of seven days from today. On receipt of such explanation from a detailed enquiry and the respondents are the petitioners, the respondents are directed to conduct then proceed in accordance with law. Till such time directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject properties. In view of the same, subsequent notice dated 31.01.2025 stands set aside. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Note:- learned Standing Counsel for the T' respondent is directed to forthwith inform the concerned officer of the 1®' respondent not to proceed with any further demolitions, till compliance of this order. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT,REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Municipal Commissioner, Kanigiri Municipality, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. (By Speed Post) 2. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. [By Special Messenger] 3. One CC to Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s V. Sireesha Rani, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED;01/02/2025 ? 01 FEB 2025 ^ CukW^ Secvion ygapATC»<£gg^ ORDER WP.No.2695 of 2025 Co// DISPOSING OF THE WP