I THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3519 OF 2025 IN Between: Sri. Vaddi Nagendra, S/o.V.Chinna Kondaia, Aged 51 Years, R/0.8-367A Gooty, Ananthapuram District, A.P ...PETITIONER 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in Petition the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may orders or direction more particularly one in be pleased to pass an order or the nature of a writ of mandamus questioning action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned confirmation orders vide Notice No. 2/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 31.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025 by confirming the show-cause NO.2/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 23.12.2024 notice issued vide Notice No.3/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated received on 20.01.2025 and Notice 31.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025 by confirming the show-cause notice issued vide Notice No. 3/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 23.12.2024 received oh both the provisional orders and confirmatiorr 20.01.2025 and serving collectively and thereby respectively directing the Petitioner herein to bring down the entire building consisting in the premises, situated at orders D.No. 8/347-K-L, Anantapur Road Revenue Ward No. 8 Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P which property is near to D.No/Plot No.8/367-A 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 1965, A.P Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities 2016' and A.P Building Rules, 2017', besides being violation rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution India and consequently set-aside the Acti Act, of petitioners of same. lA NO: 1 OF 202fi 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 measures including that of demolition of Petitioners building D.No.8/347-K-L, Anantapur Road, Revenue Ward No. ‘ ‘ Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District property is near to D.No/Plot No.8/367-A. not to take any coercive situated at 8 Gooty Municipality , A.P which 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.V. SIREESHA RANI FOR MUNICIPALITIES ,SC The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010061992025 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: 3519/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Sri Vaddi Nagendra AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 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 - z' seeking the following relief: to pass an order or orders or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus questioning the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned confirmation order vide Notice NO.02/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 31.12.2024, received on 20.01.2025, notice issued vide Notice by confirming the show-cause NO.02/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 23.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025 and Notice No.3/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 31.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025 by confirming the show-cause notice issued vide Notice NO.3/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 23.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025 and serving both the provisionai orders and confirmation orders coilectively and thereby respectively directing the Petitioner herein to bring down the entire building consisting in the premises, situated at D.No.8/347-K-L, Anantapur Road, Revenue Ward No.8, Gooty Municipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District, A.P. which property is near to D.No/Plot No.8/367-A 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 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, A.P. provisions 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....” The brief facts of the case are as follows; 2. a) The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.02 cents, an extent of Ac.0.04 cents, an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.378-B of Gooty, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District from its lawful owners through sale deeds. As such, the petitioner is the absolute owner and of land in total extent of 391.32 Sq.yards in Sy.No.378-B. various possessor b) The petitioner with an intention to construct and develop the above said property made applications to the 2"^^ respondent on 26.05.2017 and 29.05.2017 for an extent of Ac.0.04 cents and Ac.0.02 cents respectively for grant of permission for construction of residential building. The 2""* respondent granted permission vide 1156/0126/B/GYMC/ATPR/2017, dated 26.05.2017 and 1156/0027/B/GYMC/ATPR/2017, dated 29.05.2017 and the petitioner herein had not taken any permission for the balance extent of Ac.0.02 cents but the petitioner constructed a single building by combining all the above mentioned properties. After obtaining the obtaining the building permission, the petitioner started construction of proposed building in accordance with the building plan granted in the year 2017 and thereafter due to noise and dust pollution, 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 regularize an extent of Ac.0.02 cents and accordingly, the respondents agreed for the same and imposed commercial tax and since then the petitioner is running hospital and has been paying taxes to the respondents. 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 action will be taken as per law. The said Provisional Notice was served on the 4 petitioner on 20.01.2025 along with Confirmation Order dated 31.12.2024, wherein the petitioner was directed to bring down the construction into the rule frame 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 to conduct any survey by giving a notice to the petitioner and also affording an opportunity of hearing to him. 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. 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 4. 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 down under Sections 217, 218(3) of APM Act 1965. The petitioner neither followed the directions mentioned in the Provisional Notice nor submitted 5 sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation constructions should not be removed. Therefore, the impugned Confirmation Order was passed. 5. 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 petitioner has failed to submit explanation to the provisional notice as well as failed to attend for personal hearing. nd an Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 04.02.2025 and the same was not served upon the petitioner by 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 and thereafter, the respondents may consider the same. 6. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner i: permitted to submit his explanation 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 IS 6 of the same, the 2 respondent is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry in 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. In view of the same, the Confirmation Order Notice dated 31.12.2024 8. and rejection order dated 04.02.2025 are set aside. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //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, A.P. 4. One CC to Sri M. K. Viswanath Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani, 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 fofANOH;^^ * 0 5 MAK 2025 &^ . Current aecuon WP.No.3519 Of 2025 ml* i DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS