APHC010078872014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 40959/2014 Between: Siddela Rekha, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 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/direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice No:Rc.G4-136769/2013, Dtd.20- 12-2014 issued by the 181 respondent U/s.456 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 for demolition of Tin Sheds bearing No's:16-10-13, 16-10-14 & 16-10-15 (but referred as D.No:16-10-20) situated at Purnanandampet, Vijayawada City within 48 hours from the date of receipt of said notice, failing which proposing to take action without considering petitioner's request for stopping the demolition as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein not to demolish the above Tin Sheds and pass…” 2. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein have purchased tin shed mulgies bearing No.16-10-13 and 16-10-14 vide Registered document Nos.253 of 2014 and 252 of 2014, respectively, dated 08.01.2014 and are in the exclusive possession of the same. The 3rd petitioner herein is a tenant of the tin shed bearing No.16-10-15, which belongs to one S. Aruna. 3. While the matter stood thus, the respondent corporation has issued the impugned demolition notice under Section 456 of HMC Act directing one Dr. Sankranthi Kusuma Kumari, who is the owner of the adjacent building of the subject property bearing No.16-10-8, to demolish the structure immediately within 48 hours from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which action would be initiated as per the provisions of Section 456 of HMC Act, 1955 for removal of the structure. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioners’ property has got nothing to do with the premises of the adjacent building bearing No.16-10-8 or 16-10-20, the respondent authorities have served the impugned notice dated 20.12.2014 on the petitioners as if the petitioners are the tenants of the aforesaid building. As the respondents have tried to evict the petitioners from the subject premises, without following the due procedure of law, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 30.12.2014, this Court has passed the following order: “…there shall be interim direction as prayed for a period of eight (8) weeks from today.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Municipal Corporation. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has furnished a copy of instructions of the Deputy City Planner, Circle-1, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, vide Rc.No.G4/136769/2014, dated 23.01.2025 wherein it is stated that the entire extent of the property in question is 598 square yards out of which, 536 square yards were demolished by the owner i.e. Sankranthi Karuna Kumari. The remaining extent of 62 square yards was sold by the said owner to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein. The petitioners herein, have purchased their respective properties and renovated the structure and are continuing their respective business in the said premises. 7. It can be seen that the impugned notice dated 20.12.2014 was originally issued to the owner of the building in D.No.16-10-20, which is adjacent to the petitioners’ property. The entire extent of the property in question is 598 square yards out of which, 536 square yards were demolished by the owner i.e. Sankranthi Karuna Kumari. The remaining extent of 62 square yards was purchased by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein for running business. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the impugned notice has got nothing to do with their possession over the subject property, the same were served on the petitioners and the respondent authorities are trying to evict the petitioners forcibly. 8. It can be understood that the respondent authorities have issued the impugned notice dated 20.12.2014 to the owner of the building adjacent to the petitioners’ property but not to the petitioners. Even as on today, as the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of shed mulgies bearing No.16-10-13, 16-10-14 and 16-10-15 situated in Purnanandampet, Vijayawada City, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice dated 20.12.2014 is not applicable to the petitioners and the same is liable to be set-aside. 9. In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 20.12.2014 is set-aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 29.01.2025 GSS