IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARN^l^^d TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V TJ' ll h PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA ■> ■; is WRIT PETITION NO: 4475 OF 2025 Between: Raavi Vinay Babu, S/o. Raveendranadh Age 56 years, R/o. H. No. 1- 135/3, Plot No. 145 Lakshmiganapathi Nagar, ELuru, Eluru District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, Eluru District Rep by its Commissioner ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent under section 452 (2) and 461 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1995 and under Section 86 and 89(3) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 vide Notice No. 1/1075/ELR/UC/2025 dated 11.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, non application of mind, against to the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and contrary to the guidelines framed by the Honble Supreme Court in Re Directions in the matter of demolition of structures reported in 2024 SCO Online SC 3291 and consequentially set aside the same in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Suspend the orders passed by the 2nd respondent under section 452 (2) & 461 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1995 and under Section 86 and 89(3) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 vide Notice No. 1/1075/ELR/UC/2025 dated 11.02.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE SC FOR MAUD The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010085032025 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: 4475/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Raavi Vinay Babu AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 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, order or direction more particulariy one in nature of MANDAMUS declaring the orders passed by the respondent under section 452(2) and 461(2) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1995 and under Section 86 and 89(3) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 vide Notice No.1/1075/ELR/UC/2025 dated 11.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind, against to the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and contrary to the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3291 and consequentially set aside the same ” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner purchased the building bearing House No.1-135/3, Plot No.145, Lakshmi Ganapathi Nagar, Eluru from one Kondapaneni Naveen vide registered sale deed dated 29.01.2020. The petitioner constructed a house by obtaining permission from Chodimella Gram Panchayat vide Permit No.108/2018 dated 21.01.2020, which was amalgamated in Eluru Municipal Corporation. b) While the matter being so, the 2'^'^ respondent issued a Provisional Notice dated 04.01.2025 under Sections 452(1) & 461(1) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1995, and under Sections 86 and 89(1 & 2) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, directing the petitioner to stop further construction forthwith and to show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation,,;20f?structi on should not be 3 reniov6d/alt6r6d or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, if the petitioner failed to comply, action would be taken as per law. c) After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 16.01.2025, stating that the deviations pointed out in the notice incorrect, and that the land was being used for residential purpose. The petitioner also requested that a survey be conducted in his presence. It is further stated that if any deviations were found after conducting survey, the petitioner would submit a revised plan in accordance with the prescribed procedure and was ready to seek regularization of the construction by paying the requisite fee. The petitioner further requested to grant him three months time to submit the revised plan and till such time not to take any action pursuant to the above notice, d) Despite receiving the petitioner’s explanation, the 2""^ respondent issued a Confirmation Order dated 11.02.2025, directing the petitioner to bring down the construction into the rule frame within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of that notice. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed this writ petition. were Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. 4. On perusal of the impugned Confirmation Order dated 11.02.2025 issued under Sections 452(2) & 461(2) of APMC Act 1955 under Section and Section 86, 89(3) of APMR & UDA Act 2016, it can>e observed that, in 4 pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by the 2 04.01.2025, the petitioner has submitted an explanation requesting the respondent authorities to conduct an inspection, as he has not deviated to the building permission granted to him. However, except stating that the reply given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and contrary to the provisions of rules in force, no reasons were assigned by the 2"^ respondent to what are the specific violations committed by the petitioner. The said Confirmation Order is issued without assigning any proper reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s explanation. nd respondent on In view of the fact that the Confirmation Order dated 11.02.2025 issued by the 2'''' respondent is not a reasoned order, the same is liable to be set aside. As such, the matter is remanded back to the 2"^^ respondent for consideration afresh, duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks. Till such time, the respondents shall not interfere into the petitioner’s possession. 5. 6. Accordingly, the 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. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER / //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, Eluru District 3. One CC to Sri. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Advocate [OPUC] 4. OneCCto Sri. A.S.C Bose SC for MAUD [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP For Municipal Admin Urban Dev ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4475 of 2025 X 17 MAR 2025 ' ^ . Current Section f a DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS