APHC010068172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3581/2025 Between: Elavala Krishnaveni ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIKHIL CHOWDARY GUNTUPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 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 an order or a direction or a writ, more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the notice vide R.O.C. No. 44/2025/G1 dated 07-02- 2025 and LL C. No 01/WS-04/2025/G1 dated 29-01-2025 issued by the 4th Respondent pass…” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property to an extent of Acs.0.0826 situated in Sy.No.90/2 in ward No.7 with Door No.7-308, Chimakurthi Grama Panchayati, Prakasam district, having purchased the same from bonafide purchaser in the year 2005. While the matter being so, in the year 2017, the petitioner was approached by Dwarakamayi Educational Society for leasing out the schedule property to establish a junior college for the students in and around Chimakurthi Village. On 06.05.2017, the petitioner has entered into legal agreement with the Dwarakamayi Educational Society and accordingly, they have built a college namely MSR Junior College in the said leased area and thereafter, started running the said college since 2017. After obtaining all the statutory permissions from the authorities, the college has been established and currently 200 students are pursuing their studies. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent has issued a notice vide Roc.No.44/2025/G1 dated 07.02.2025 enclosing another notice dated 29.01.2025, requesting the petitioner to submit the required statutory documents to prove that she is the absolute owner of the said property. Thereafter, on 08.02.2025, the petitioner received a phone call from the 4th respondent informing her that they would demolish the compound wall which the petitioner has built for the purpose of temple. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was served the notice dated 07.02.2025 duly enclosing a copy of the earlier notice dated 29.01.2025 also, without giving an opportunity of submitting an explanation and on the very next date i.e. 08.02.2025, she received a call from the 4th respondent stating that the authorities would demolish the compound wall constructed by the petitioner in the subject property. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has furnished a copy of the instructions of the 4th respondent vide Roc.No.2087/2024/G1, dated 10.02.2025 wherein it is stated that the staff of the 4th respondent having identified the construction of compound wall in Sy.No.90/2 of Chimakurthy Revenue village, have issued provisional order notice dated 16.01.2025 to the petitioner’s husband as per Section 228(1&2) of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, directing to take prior permission from the authorities as per Section 209 of the Act, 1965. But, as no steps were initiated by the petitioner or her husband, the 4th respondent has issued confirmation notice dated 29.01.2025 directing the petitioner’s husband to remove the unauthorized construction of compound wall. 7. It is further stated that one Sri. Rampathoti Hanumantha Rao, has approached the 4th respondent and as well as this Court by way of a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.1228 of 2025 alleging that the site in Sy.No.90/2 belongs to him and requested to take action against the unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner herein in the said site. As such, the 4th respondent has issued notice dated 07.02.2025 instructing the petitioner’s husband to submit documents and plan approvals for the constructions in Sy.No.90/2 of Chimakurthy Revenue Village. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that except issuing the notice dated 07.02.2025, the respondent authorities have not informed the petitioner that they are intending to demolish the compound wall raised by the petitioner in the subject property. 8. On a perusal of the instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, it can be observed that the petitioner’s husband was issued provisional order notice dated 16.01.2025 and confirmation notice dated 29.01.2025 directing to remove the unauthorized construction of compound wall in the subject property. Thereafter, upon receiving a complaint made by one Sri. Rampathoti Hanumantha Rao, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 07.02.2025 directing the petitioner herein to provide registered documents, link documents and building construction permits or any other title deeds related to the subject property. However, learned Standing Counsel has denied that the 4th respondent has contacted the petitioner stating that the compound wall constructed by the petitioner in the subject property would be demolished. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel and in view of the fact that the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 07.02.2025, only directing the petitioner to submit requisite permissions relating to the construction made in the subject property, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to furnish all the requisite documents pertaining to the constructions made in the subject property, to the 4th respondent, within a period of seven (7) days from today. Upon receipt of such documents, the respondent authorities are directed to conduct an enquiry by giving notice to the petitioner and as well as Sri. Rampathoti Hanumantha Rao and thereafter to initiate further course of action in accordance with law. 10. Till such time, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. 11. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.02.2025 GSS