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: 3522 OF 20?/^ Between: 1. N. C. Sreenivas Rao, S/o. D.No.7/1923, Church Road, Revenue District, A.P. 2. E.Chakrapani, S/o. D.No.7/1923, Church Road, Revenue District. A.P. Chinna Kasi Rao, Aged about 55 Ward No. 7, Gooty, Ananthapur years. Chinna Kasi Rao, Aged about 53 years. Ward No. 7, Gooty, Ananthapur ...PETITIONERS AND Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipality Administration and Urban Deveiopment Secretariat, Amaravathi, Vetagapudi. 2. Gooty Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Anantapur District A P 3. Town Planning Section, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District, A.P. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (MA and UD) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated i be pleased to Constitution of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may more particularly one in questioning the action of respondent confirmation pass an order or orders or direction the nature of a writ of mandamus No.2 issuing impugned in order vide Notice on 22.01.2025, Notice No. received on 22.01.2025 and and confirmation order collectively NO.04/2024/WPRS08 dated.30.12.2024, cause received issued vide confirming the show- notice NO.04/2024/WPRS08 dated.23.12.2024, serving both the provisional order and directing the Petitioner herein to bring down the of G plus 2 in the premises, D.No/Plot No. 7/1923 Road. Revenue Ward No. 7, Gooty, Ananthapur frame, without according any time for submitting any physical inspection of the Petitioners speaking or well-reasoned order, principles of natural justice. Contrary to the entire building consisting situated at Church District, A.P into rule reply, without conducting premises, without passing any as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of 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. Constitution of India and 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the consequently set-aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 907*: Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. praying that in the circumstances 2 and 3 not to take any coercive measures including that of demolition of Petitioner's building, situated at D.No/Plot No. 7/1923, situated at Church Road, Revenue Ward No. 7, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: K. VISWANATH NAIDU GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s. V.SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER i' 1 APHC010061952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] V. f TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3522/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER{S) N.C.Sreenivas Rao and another AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.M KVISWANATH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following; T 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.04/2024/WPRS08 dated 30.12.2024, received on 22.01.2025, confirming the show-cause notice issued vide Notice NO.04/2024/WPRS08 dated 23.12.2024, received on 22.01.2025 and serving both the provisional order and confirmation order collectively and directing the petitioners herein to bring down the entire building consisting of G+2 in the premises, D.No/Plot No.7/1923, situated at Church Road, Revenue Ward No.7, 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 ” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property which consists of a building in an extent of 160.33 sq.yards situated at D.No/Plot No.7/1923 situated at Church Road, Revenue Ward No.7, Gooty, Ananthapur District having purchased the same from its lawful owner through sale deed dated 27.10.2005. b) The petitioners with an intention to make further construction and nd develop the above said property, made an application before the 2 respondent authority on 29.08.2022 seeking permission for construction of 3 ^*5 residential building. The 2'''' respondent herein vide building Permit Order No.1156/0058/B/GYMC/CHRD/2022, dated 08.Q9.2022 granted permission for construction for construction of residential building. Accordingly, the petitioner has started construction of the proposed building strictly in accordance with the approved building plan and thereafter due to noise and dust pollution prevailing on the main road which was not viable for residential purposes, the petitioner had approached the respondent and orally sought for conversion of the residential building permission to commercial building and also requested the respondent to levy tax and convert the same into commercial tax and accordingly, the respondents imposed commercial tax and since then the petitioner is running Ladies Corner and Gift Centre and has been paying taxes on commercial basis as being levied by the respondents. c) While the matter being so. Provisional Order Notice dated 23.12.2024 was issued to the petitioners directing them 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 action will be taken as per law. The said Provisional Notice was served on the petitioner on 22.01.2025 along with Confirmation Order dated 30.12.2024, wherein the petitioners were directed to bring down the construction within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. 4 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 them. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 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 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 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 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. As the petitioners 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 4. passed. 5 It is further stated that all the building owners have submitted a 5. 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 petitioners have failed to submit an explanation to the provisional notice as well as failed to attend for personal hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation of 6. the petitioners was rejected on 04.02.2025 which infact was not served upon the petitioners as on the time of filing of the present writ petition. As such they could not challenge the rejection order. However, as no 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 explanation in pursuance of the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 which was served on the petitioner on 22.01.2025. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are 7. 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 23.12.2024. On respondent is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry in pursuance of the above saict-Pfo^sional Order dated nd receipt of the same, the 2 6 23.12.2024 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. 8. In view of the same, the Confirmation Order Notice dated 30.12.2024 and rejection order dated 04.02.2025 are set aside. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipality Administration and Urban Deveiopment(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, A.P. 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 Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED: 11/02/2025 ORDER bf X 1 2 mar 2025 j - . Current Section WP.No.3522 of 2025 40 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS