1 APHC010085642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4423/2025 Between: M. Venkatramana, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR 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 issue a Writ or Order or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 in interfering with the property of the petitioner in Door bearing No.3/146-14-10-1-B, S.No.105/1, 2, 3 of Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh in an extent of 450 Square feet in Municipal Tax Assessment NO.1009029803 to demolish the same under the guise of the Confirmation Order which is in the nature of non-speaking order in Notice No.75/1009/MDP/UC/2024, dated 02.08.2024 without considering the reply of the petitioner dated 02.07.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300A of the Constitution of India as well as oppose to principles of natural justice consequentially direct the respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 not to interfere with the property of the petitioner to demolish the same under the guise of the confirmation Order in Notice No.75/1009/MDP/UC/2024, dated 02.08.2024 in Door bearing No.3/146-14-10-1-B, S.No.105/1, 2, 3 of Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh in an extent of 450 Square feet in Municipal Tax Assessment NO.1009029803…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The subject property, bearing Door No.3/146-14-10-1-B in S.No.105/1, 2, 3 in an extent of 450 Square feet, situated at Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District is an ancestral property and the same was devolved upon the petitioner from his forefathers. His grandfather purchased the said property way back in the year 1921 through registered Document bearing No.1536/1921. Since the date of devolvement, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as the title holder. The petitioner constructed a thatched house in the subject property and municipal tax was assessed by the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the electricity department gave electricity service connection. 3 3. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued a provisional notice on 28.06.2024, directing the petitioner to stop further construction forthwith and to show sufficient cause as to why the unauthorized construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which the action would be taken as per law. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.07.2024, stating that he has been paying property tax and requesting for registration of the said house. However, without considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent passed a Confirmation Order on 02.08.2024. The staff of the 2nd respondent, on 17.02.2025, visited the property, claiming that they would demolish the structures in question. Challenging the said action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 produced a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has made unauthorized constructions and the respondents have issued the provisional notice to him on 28.06.2024 specifying the unauthorized portion of land. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, as he is proceeding further with the construction, the 2nd respondent directed him to comply with the provisional order dated 4 28.06.2024. However, as the petitioner failed to comply with the provisional order, the respondents have proceeded further by issuing a confirmation order on 02.08.2024 stating that a show-cause notice dated 28.06.2024 under Section 228(1 & 2) of APM Act 1965 and 89(1 & 2) of APMR & UD Act 2016 was served on the petitioner, but the petitioner has not complied with the lawful direction given to him. Therefore, as per APM Act 1965, the petitioner is liable for punishment under Sections 217, 228(3) & 340 of AP Municipalities Act 1965. Thereafter, the respondents have also filed a charge sheet against the petitioner vide 75/1009/MDP/UC/2024 dated 17.08.2024 on the file of learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Madanapalle and the same is pending for trial. 6. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said charge sheet before the trial Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 20.02.2025 KGR