1 APHC010055482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2890/2025 Between: Dr.K.Aneesh Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DWARAMPUDI SAVITHRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to pull down the property of the petitioners in an extent of 141.33 Sq.Yards covered by survey Nos.305/1A, LRS No.3776/2010 dated 24.06.2010 and BA No.1012/0057/B/TIR/S.V.N/2018 dated 3.3.2018 situated at ward No.11, Muthyala Reddy Panchyathi, Thirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi Urban Sub D, Tirupathi comprising of shops without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provision of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to demolish the building without following due process of law …...” 2. The petitioner herein has purchased the property to an extent of 141.33 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.305/1A, located in Ward No.11, Muthyala Reddy Panchayathi, Tirupathi vide registered sale deed dated 27.11.2020 from one Y.NagendraBabu, Proprietor of M/s.Larven Developers, Tirupathi, who, in turn, had purchased the same from one C.Nagarathnamma, who was original owner of the said property. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the said Nagarathnamma who was the original owner of the said property has obtained building permission from respondent No.3 authority vide LRs 3776/2010 and B.A.No.1012/0057/B/TIR/S.V.N./2018 dated 03.03.2018. However, she was able to construct the building up to second floor only. After purchasing the said property, the petitioner took up the construction works and has also 3 completed the same according to the building permission granted by respondent No.3 authority. 4. While the matter being so, all of a sudden due to political pressure, respondent No.3 sent his officers on 03.02.2025 to the petitioner’s property and informed that they are going to demolish the petitioner’s property, but, however, without any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. 5. Today, when the matter came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.3 has furnished a copy of the instructions of the Deputy City Planner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, wherein it is stated that on 10.08.2022, a Provisional Notice was given to the original owner of the said property i.e., Nagarathnamma, as she has failed to submit any explanation to the provisional notice, a Confirmation Order was passed on 19.08.2022. It is further stated that the petitioner, knowing all the said facts, purchased the same on 27.11.2020. Though the said Nagarathnamma obtained permission for the construction of stilt + three upper floors residential building, the petitioner proceeded to construct two upper floors, by duly violating the original building permission granted to the original owner i.e., Nagarathnamma on 03.03.2018. As such, the respondents have interfered with the petitioner’s possession and directed the petitioner not to deviate from the sanctioned building permission granted to them. 4 6. On perusal of the said instructions furnished by respondent No.3, it can be understood that though the petitioner purchased the said property from one Nagarathnamma on 27.11.2020 and has been in possession of the said property since the date of his purchase, respondent No.3, in spite of issuing provisional notice as well as confirmation notice on the petitioner, has served both the notices on the petitioner’s vendor i.e., Ms.Nagarathnamma. Though the case of respondent No.3 is that the petitioner has violated the original building permission granted to the original owner Nagarathnamma on 03.03.2018, the respondents ought to have given provisional notice to the petitioner herein, who was in fact in possession of the said property on the date of issuance of provisional notice i.e., 10.08.2022, the respondents cannot try to interfere with the petitioner’s possession under the guise of notice issued on the petitioner’s vendor though it is alleged that the petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned building plan. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property, without following due process of law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 07.02.2025 KGR