IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE j PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHa'^^! WRIT PETITION NO: 3518 OF 202^ i Between: 1. V. Suvarna Gupta, W/o. V. Prakash Gupta, Aged about 62 years, D. No. 9/736-A and B, Beside Parmeswara Petrol Bunk, Revenue Ward No. 9, Gooty Municipality, Gooty, Ananthapur District. A.P. 2. V. Krishna Priya, W/o P. Venkesh Gupta, Aged about 58 years, D.No. 9/736-B, Beside Parmeswara Petrol Bunk, Revenue Ward No. 9, Gooty Municipality, Gooty, Ananthapur District. A.P. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The 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 or orders or direction more particularly one in may the nature of a writ of mandamus questioning the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned confirmation order vide Notice No. 01/1156/GY/2024 dated 30.12.2024, received on 21.01.2025, confirming the show- cause notice issued vide Notice No. 01/1156/GY/2024 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 K bring down the entire building, No. 9/736-A and B, Kurnool Municipality, Gooty, Ananthapur District D.Nd/Plot No.9/795 consisting of (G +1), situated at D.No./Plot Road, Revenue Ward No. 9, Gooty A.P which property is near td into rule frame, without according any time fot :’i submitting reply, without conducting Petitioners premises, without any physical inspection of the passing any speaking or well-reasoned order; as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural i the provisions of Andhra justice. Contrary to 1965, A.P Authorities Act, 2016 and being violation of petitioners rights of the Constitution of India Pradesh Municipalities Act Metropolitan Region and Urban Development A.P Building Rules, 2017, besides guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A and consequently set-aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 209.ii 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 (G+1), situated at D.No./Plot No. s building consisting of 9/736- A & B, Kurnool Road, Revenue Ward No. 9, Gooty Municipality, Gooty property is near to D.No/Plot No.9/795. Ananthapur District, AP, which 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. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following; ORDER 1 APHC010061912025 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: 3518/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) V.Suvarna Gupta 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. 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 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.01/1156/GY/2024 dated 30.12.2024, received on 21.01.2025, confirming the show-cause notice issued vide Notice NO.01/1156/GY/2024 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 of G+1, situated at D.No./Plot No.9/736-A & B, Kurnool Road, Revenue Ward No.9, Gooty Municipality, Gooty, Anantapur District, A.P. which property is near to D.no./Plot No.9/975, 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 petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land in an extent of 344.11 Sq.yards and 267.44 sq.yards situated at D.No./Plot N0.9/736-A&B Kurnool Road, Revenue Ward No.9, Gooty Municipality, Gooty, Anantapur District, A.P. which is located near to D.No./Plot No.9/795. The 1®' petitioner along with the 2^^ petitioner purchased same from its lawful owner through Sale Deed Nos.1243/2015 dated 24.04.2015 and 2532/2015 dated 30.07.2015. 3 y» b) The petitioners with an intention to construct said property made an application to the 2'^^ grant of permission for construction of commercial and develop the above respondent on 25.07.2015 for building and another application on 07.04.2016 for residential building. The 2^'" respondent, vide B.A.NO.51/2015/G1 07.04.2016 granted permission for construction building. Accordingly, the petitioners constructed the Ground + first floor in accordance with the dated 25.07.2015 and B.A.NO.35/2016/G1 dated of the aforesaid proposed building consisting of approved building plans, and are presently running a shopping complex in the subject property. c) While the matter being 23.12.2024 was issued to the construction forthwith and show sufficient deviation/violation construction should not be within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice action will be taken as per law. The said Provisional Notice was served on the petitioners on 21.01.2025 along with Confirmation Provisional Order Notice dated so. petitioners directing them to stop further cause as to why the removed/altered or pulled down failing which, further dated 23.12.2024 Order dated 30.12.2024, wherein the petitioners were directed to bring down the unauthorized construction within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. d) The Confirmation Order is under challenge on the ground that before passing the said Confirmation Order, the 2"^ respondent failed enquiry by giving a notice to the petitioners and also affording of hearing to them. to conduct any an opportunity 4 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. 4. 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 passed. It is further stated that all the building owners including the petitioners herein 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 relevaiTr documents so as to submit a detailed reply and also to give an opportunity for personal hearing. However, the said 5. 5 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 in fact 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 their explanation in pursuance of the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 which was served on the petitioners on 21.01.2025. 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 petitioners on 21.01.2025 along with the Confirmation Order dated 30.12.2024. It is also an admitted fact that if at all, the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioners prior to the service of Confirmation Order, the petitioners ought to have got an opportunityto submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice, But in the present case, as both the notices were served on the same day i.e., on 21.01.2025, the petitioners could not get an opportunity to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice. 5 nd respondent on 04.02.2025 on the representations were rejected by the 2 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 the petitioners was rejected on 04.02.2025 which in fact 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 their explanation in pursuance of the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 which was served on the petitioners on 21.01.2025. 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 petitioners on 21.01.2025 along with the Confirmation Order dated 30.12.2024. It is also an admitted fact that if at all, the Provisional Notice dated 23.12.2024 was served on the petitioners prior to the service of Confirmation Order, the petitioners 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 the same day i.e., on 21.01.2025, the petitioners could not get an opportunity to submit explanation to the said Provisional Notice. 6 8. 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 petitioners 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 their claim to the above said Provisional Order dated 23.12.2024. On receipt of the same, the 2 respondent is directed to procoed with the necessary enquiry in pursuance of the above said Provisional Order dated 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 coercive steps. any 9. In view of the same, the Confirmation Order Notice dated 30.12.2024 is set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT* REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development(MA and UD) Secretariat, State of Andhra Pradesh, 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 One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalities[OPUC] Two CCS to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. [OPUC] 5. 6. 7. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3518 of 2025 r X 11 MAR 2025 « ^ Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS