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.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3573 OF 2025 Between: Sri. Sreekaram Ravi, S/o. R/0.D.N0.8/8IO-C, ATP Road, Revenue Ward.8 District, A.P. S. Rachaiah, Aged about 53 years, Gooty, Ananthapur ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipality Administration and Urban Development(MA and UD) Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi. 2. Gooty Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Anantapur District, A.P.. 3. Town Planning Section, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District A.P. ...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 pass an order may or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus questioning the action of respondent confirmation N0.2 issuing impugned in order vide Notice N0.O2/2023/WPRSI dated.31.12.2024 the show- received on 21.01.2025, confirming cause notice issued vide Notice No. 02/2023/WPRS1 dated.23.12.2024, received on 21.01.2025 and serving both the provisional order and confirmation order collectively and directing the Petitioner herein to bring down the entire building consisting in the premises, situated at D.No/Plot N0.8/8IO-C, Anantapur Road, Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District A.P into rule frame, without according any time for submitting reply, without conducting any physical inspection of the Petitioners premises, without passing any speaking or well-reasoned order, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice. Contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, A.P Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act; 2016 and A.P Building Rules, 2017, besides being violation of petitioners rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same. 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 direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to take measures including that of demolition of Petitioner’s building, situated at D.No/Plot No. 8/810-C, Anantapur Road, Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty, Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P. any coercive Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. K. VISWANATH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010061972025 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: 3573/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Sri. Sreekaram Ravi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M K VISWANATH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 4 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus questioning the action of respondent No. 2 in issuing impugned confirmation order vide Notice No.02/2023A/\/PRS1 dated 31.12.2024, received on 21.01.2025, confirming the show-cause notice issued vide Notice NO.02/2023AA/PRS1 dated 23.12.2024, received on 21.01.2025 and serving both the provisional order and confirmation order collectively and directing the petitioner herein to bring down the entire building consisting in the premises, situated at D. No./Plot N0.8/8IO-C, Anantapur Road, Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P. into rule frame, without according any time for submitting reply, without conducting any physical Inspection of the petitioner’s premises without passing any speaking or well-reasoned order, as arbitrary. Illegal In violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, A.P.Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and A.P. Building Rules, 2017, besides being violation of petitioners rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same....” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; a) The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land in an extent of 385 Sq.yards situated at D.No./Plot N0.8/8IO-C which is near to D.No./Plot No.8/811 at Ananthapur Road, Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P., having acquired rights through partition deed No.3435 of 2017 dated 26.09.2017. Since then, the 3 petitioner is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Subsequently, the said property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner in the property tax records. b) The petitioner with an intention to construct and develop the above said property, submitted an application to the 2"'* respondent on 01.02.2018 for grant of permission for construction of residential building. The 2 respondent granted permission vide 1156/0114/B/GYMC/ATPR/2017, dated 01.02.2018 for construction of the aforesaid proposed building. After obtaining the said building permission, the petitioner started construction of proposed building in accordance with the building plan granted in the year 2018 and thereafter due to noise and dust pollution prevailing on the main road which was not viable for residential purposes, the petitioner approached the 2 respondent and orally sought for conversion of the residential building permission to commercial building and also requested the respondents to levy tax and convert the same into commercial tax and accordingly the respondents agreed for the same and imposed commercial tax. Since then, the petitioner is running Baja] Show Room in the subject property and has been paying taxes on commercial basis to the respondents. nd nd c) While the matter being so. Provisional Order Notice dated 23.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner directing him to stop further construction forthwith and show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, further 4 action will be taken as per law. The said Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2025 along with Confirmation Order dated 31.12.2024, wherein the petitioner was directed to bring down the unauthorized construction within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. f d) The Confirmation Order is under challenge on the ground that before passing the said Confirmation Order, the 2'"^ respondent failed to conduct any enquiry by giving a notice to the petitioner and also affording an opportunity of hearing to him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government 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 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 4. Commissioner, Gooty previously issued Provisional Order Notice dated 23.12.2022 under Sections 217, 228(1) & 228(2) of A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 to the petitioner directing him 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 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 5 down under Sections 217, 218(3) of APM Act 1965. As the petitioner neither followed the directions mentioned in the Provisional Notice nor submitted sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation constructions should not be removed. Therefore, the impugned Confirmation Order was passed. It is further stated that all the building owners including the petitioner have submitted a representation on 27.01.2025 in pursuance of the notices served on them requesting to grant time to furnish the details as per the notices, to secure relevant documents so as to submit a 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 petitioner has failed to submit an explanation to the provisional notice as well as failed to attend for personal hearing. 5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 04.02.2025 which infact was not served upon the petitioner as on the time of filing of the present writ petition. As such he could not challenge the rejection order. However, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner either to submit an explanation or to submit the relevant documents to prove his title over the said property, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to permit the petitioner to submit his explanation pursuance of the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 which was served the petitioner on 21.01.2025. in on 6 % In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, it can be 7. understood that the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2025 along with the Confirmation Order dated 31.12.2024. It is also an admitted fact that if at all, the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioner prior to the service of Confirmation Order, the petitioner ought to have got an opportunity to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice, But in the present case, as both the notices were served on 21.01.2025, the petitioner could not get an on the same day i.e opportunity to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice. Therefore, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to the above said Provisional Order dated 23.12.2024. On receipt of the same, the 2^^ respondent is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry in 8. pursuance of the above said Provisional Order dated 23.12.2024 by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner 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. 7 In view of the same, the Confirmation Order Notice dated 31.12.2024 is 9. are set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. 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, Municipality Administration and Urban Development(MA and UD), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi. 2. The Commissioner, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District, A.P.. 3. The Town Planning Section, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District 4. One CC to Sri M. K. Viswanath Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalities[OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ,A.P. Development ssb HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER ANDH^ WP.No.3573 of 2025 ■& 13 MAR 2025 . Current section . ^ o» DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS