i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ' THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATH WRIT PETITION NO: 3185 OF 2025 Between: 1. Nayakanti Ravi Kumar, S/o Nayakanti Pandurangaiah, Aged about 49 years, R/o D/No 8/977, Near S Bl, Ananthapur Road, Near S.B.I Gooty, Ananthapur, Anathapur District. Andhra Pradesh. 2. N.Siva Prasad, S/o Nayakanti Pandurangaiah, Aged about 45 years, R/o D/No 8/977, Near SBI, Ananthapur Road, Near S.B.I Gooty, • Ananthapur, Anathapur District. Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi. 2. The Gooty Municipality, Rep. by Its Commissioner. Gooty,Ananthapuramu District. 3. The Town Planning Officer, Gooty Municipality Gooty, Ananthapuram District. ...Respondents • Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent may in initiating steps to demolish the petitioner residential house bearing No- 8/811-C, Vide Assessment No 1156001873.A.T.P. Road, Revenue Ward No.8 Gooty, Ananthapur District A.P. by issuing conformation orders vide notice No-82/1156/GY/UC/2022, Dated 18/12/2024 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner herein, without conducting survey in the presence of the petitioner and without giving opportunity for personal hearing and without following the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner for submitting explanation. 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 suspend the conformation order vide No;82/1156/GY/UC/2022, Dated 18/12/2024. notice Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: M/S V SIREESHA RANI SC FOR MAUD The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010055842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3185/2025 Between; Nayakanti Ravi Kumar and another ...PETITIONER(S) AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S); 1.M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: 2 A ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to issue a writ, order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 2""' respondent in initiating steps to demolish the petitioner residential house bearing No.8/811-C, vide Assessment No.1156001873, A.T.P. Road, Revenue Ward No 8, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P. by issuing conformation orders vide notice No.82/1156/GY/UC/2022, Dated 18/12/2024 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner herein, without conducting survey in the presence of the petitioner and without giving opportunity for personal hearing and without following the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2"^^ respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner for submitting explanation ” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioners have purchased a house bearing N0.8/8II-C, A.T.P. Road, Revenue Ward No.08, Gooty, Ananthapuramu District by way of registered sale deed dated 07.02.2007. The petitioners applied for nd construction of new building and accordingly, on 07.10.2022, the 2 respondent vide permit No.1156/0057/B/GYMC/BC/2022 gave permission for construction of new building to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners constructed the residential building and have been residing in the said building. b) While the matter being so, a Provisional Notice in ROC No.82/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 05.12.2024 was issued to the petitioners directing them to remove unauthorized construction or pull down within seven days of the receipt of the notice, if not, the s^m^^ill be treated as a 3 continuous and intentional offence and will be confirmed under Section 228(3) and 340 of APM Act. Immediately after receiving the said Provisional Notice the petitioners approached an advocate in Gooty, who has advised them to bring all the relevant papers. But, however, thereafter, the petitioners could St not contact their counsel within reasonable time, due to ill-health of the 1 petitioner. Meanwhile, the 2'^'^ respondent passed a Confirmation Order No.82/1156/GY/UC/2022, dated 18.12.2024. c) The Confirmation Order is under challenge on the ground that before passing the said Confirmation Order, the 2'^^ respondent failed to conduct any survey by giving a notice to the petitioners and also affording an opportunity of hearing to them. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government 2. Pleader for Municipal Corporation for respondent No.1 and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel 3. appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has furnished a copy of instructions of the Commissioner, Gooty Municipality, wherein it is stated that the then Commissioner, Gooty previously issued Provisional Order Notice dated 27.12.2022 under Sections 217, 228(1) & 228(2) of A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 to the petitioners directing them to stop further construction forthwith and show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation constructions should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the 4 Jt date of receipt of this notice, failing which, it will be treated as a continuous and intentional offence and further action will be taken as per the provisions laid down under Sections 217, 218(3) of APM Act 1965. The petitioners neither followed the directions mentioned in the Provisional Notice submitted sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation constructions should not be removed. Therefore, the impugned Confirmation Order passed. nor was It is further stated that all the building owners have submitted a representation on 27.01.2025 to the notices served on them requesting to grant time to furnish the details as per the notices, to secure relevant documents and give detailed reply and also to give an opportunity for personal hearing. However, the said representations were rejected by the 2 respondent on 04.02.2025 on the ground the petitioners have failed to submit an explanation to the provisional notice as well as failed to attend for personal hearing. 4. nd Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation of the petitioners was rejected on 04.02.2025 i.e., after filing of the writ petition, as such, they could not challenge the rejection order. However opportunity was given to the petitioners either to submit an explanation or to submit the relevant documents to prove their title over the said property, learned counsel for the petitioners requested to permit the petitioners to submit their explanation and thereafter, th^espondents same. 5. as no may consider the 5 In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to submit their explanation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim to the above said Provisional Order dated 05.12.2024. On receipt of the same, the 2""' respondent is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry in pursuance of the above said Provisional Order dated 05.12.2024 by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and upon verification of the records and the subject building, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive steps. 6. 7. In view of the same, the Confirmation Order Notice dated 18.12.2024 and rejection order dated 04.02.2025 are set aside. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT) REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner, Gooty Municipality, Gooty, Ananthapuramu 3. The Town Planning Officer, Gooty Municipality Gooty, Ananthapuram District. District. I 4. One CC to Sri. M Karibasaiah Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni SC for MAUD [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admin and Urban dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3185 of 2025 OF AN 7<* S 0 7 MAR 2125 Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS