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: 3475 OF 2025 Between: P. Pravalika, D/o P. Venkatesh, Aged 26 years, R/o Chennakesavapuram Revenue Ward No.26, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District, Sri Satya Sai. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District. 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District. 5. The Dharmavaram Municipality, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District. 6. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Dharmavaram Sri Satya Sai 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 may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction declaring the orders vide No.246/1002/DMR/UC/2024 dt. 10.01.2025 by the 5 respondent for removal of structures passed without specifying any unauthorized constructions, and also without taking into consideration of explanation offered by the petitioner and in forcibly attempting to demolish the petitioner f s building bearing D.No.26/3-8, 9 10 & 11 Chennakesavapuram Revenue Ward No.26, Yarragunta Circle, Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District is illegal and arbitrary, and consequently set aside the orders vide No.246/1002/DMR/UC/2024 dt.10.01.2025 by directing the 5*^ respondent not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's building bearing D.No.26/3-8, 9, 10 & 11, Lakshmi Chennakesavapuram, Revenue Ward No.26, Yarragunta Circle, Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District. lA NO: 1 OF 709ii 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 stay of all further proceedings In pursuant to the final orders vide NO.246/1002/DMR/UC/2024 dt. 10.01.2025 by restraining the 5‘^ respondent from interfering into the peaceful petitioner s building bearing Chennakesavapuram, possession and enjoyment of 10 & 11 D.No.26/3-8, 9 Lakshmi Yarragunta Circle, pending disposal of the writ petition. Revenue Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District Ward No.26 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 Counsel for the Respondent No.5: M/s. SIREESHA to 4: GP FOR REVENUE RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010064822025 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: 3475/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER P Pravalika AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- ...to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction No.246/1002/DMR/UC/2024 dt. 10.01.2025 deciaring the orders vide passed by the 5th respondent for removal of structures without specifying any unauthorized constructions, and also without taking into consideration of explanation offered by the petitioner and in forcibly attempting to demolish the petitioner s building bearing D. No. 26/3-8, 9, 10 and 11 Chennakesavapuram, Revenue Ward No. 26, Yarragunta Circle, Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District is illegal and arbitrary, and consequently set aside the orders vide No.246/1002/DMR/UC/2024 dt.10.01.2025 by directing the 5th respondent not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners building bearing D. No. 26/3-8, 9, 10 and 11, Lakshmi Chennakesavapuram, Revenue Ward No. 26, Yarragunta Circle, Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District and pass such..." The petitioner herein has purchased the plot No.5 in Sy.No.626 situated at Dharmavaram Municipal Limits, Dharmavaram mandal, Sri Satya Sai District vide the registered document No.4725 of 2022. Thereafter, on 06.07.2022 the petitioner has sought building permission for construction of building in the said site and the petitioner was granted permission vide permit NO.1002/0277/B/DMM/LC/2022, dated 22.07.2022; accordingly, the petitioner has constructed a building as per the building permission. 2. While the matter stood thus, the 5*^ respondent has issued provisional notice dated 29.11.2024 alleging that the petitioner made unauthorized constructions in the subject site and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation; to which the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 09.12.2024. To the utter surprise to the petitioner, the respondent has 3. issued the impugned orders vide No.246/1002/DMR/UC/2024, dated 10.01.2025 stating as under: “Sir/Smt Pasala Pravallika d o Pasala Venkatesh has submitted a reply to the above-said show-cause notice. But the reply given is not satisfactory and contrary to provisions of rules is in force. Therefore, The show-cause notice issued is hereby confirmed and confirmation notice under section 217,228(3) & 340 of AP MUNICIPALITIES Act 1965 and 86, 89(3) of APMR & UDA ACT-2016 is issued once again you are hereby instructed to bring down your construction into the rule frame within (7) seven days from the receipt of the notice. Otherwise, action will be initiated against your construction as per the provisions of the act.” Challenging the aforesaid notice dated 10.01.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned confirmation order dated 10.01.2025 is liable to be set-aside as the 5*^ respondent on the one hand states that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the provisional notice dated 29.11.2024 (in the 1®* paragraph) and on the other hand states that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the said notice is not satisfactoryand that it is contrary to provisions of rules in force. Though the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on 09.12.2024 to the said provisional notice dated 29.11.2024 stating that he has been paying commercial tax for the said building, the 5 respondent has made statements that are contrary to each other as discussed above. He further contended that, the 5*^ respondent, even without assigning any reasons as to how the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory has simply rejected the explanation stating that it is not satisfactory. Hence requested to set-aside the impugned notice dated 10.01.2025. 5. th 6. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, it can be seen that the 5*^ respondent has made contrary statements with regard to the reply submitted by the petitioner to the provisional notice. It can also be seen that the 5*'' respondent has neither discussed regarding the reply submitted by the petitioner nor has explained as to why the said reply was found unsatisfactory. Even on a perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 09.12.2024, it can be seen that the petitioner has simply stated that she has been paying commercial taxes but she has not submitted any kind of explanation to the deviations that were identified by the respondent in the provisional order dated 29.11.2024. ¥ In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioner herein to submit a fresh reply/explanation to the provisional notice dated 29.11.2024 within a period of one (1) week from today. On receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law, by duly conducting enquiry, if necessary. 7. an 8. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the 5‘^ respondent is hereby set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District, Sri Satya Sai. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District. 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District. <- ■ 5. The Municipal Commissioner, Dharmavaram Municipality, Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District. 6. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Dharmavaram Sri Satya Sai District. 7. One CC to Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalies[OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 11. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER i 2 4 FEB 2025 | Current Section . Jj WP.No.3475 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS