V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5572 OF Dnoa Between: Smt. S. Rasheeda, W/o. S. Iqbal, Aged about 64 Years, R/o. 10/1092/16, N V Colony, Kadiri, Anantapuramu District. Occ: Housewife, ...PETITIONER AND rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Madanapaiie Municipaiity, rep. by its Commissioner, Madanapalle Annamayya District. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction may more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the Confirmation Order issue vide Notice No.8/1009/MDP/VU/2025 dated 19.02.2025 under section 228(3) of APM of APMR and UDA Act,2016 Act, 1965 and under 89(3) to the Petitioner as illegal, arbitray, of Natural Justice apart from unconstitutional, against the Principles Contravention of G.O.Ms.No.128 Development(MI) Department) dated.22. (Municipal Administration and Urban 05.2015 and The Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Buildings deviation of the Sanctioned Plan constructed unauthorizedly and in Rules,2015 by duly setting aside the same and Consequently stay of Confirmation Order i all further proceedings issue vide Notice N0.8/1009/MDPA/U/2025 pursuant dated. w A 19.02.2025 under section 228(3) of APM Act. 1965 and under 89(3) of APMR and UDA Act,2016 to the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanced stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant Confirmation Order issue vide Notice No.8/1009/MDP/VU/2025 dated. 19.02.2025 under section 228(3) of APM Act, 1965 and under 89(3) of APMR & UDA Act,2016 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK MEERAVALI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010103372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5572/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Smt.S.Rasheeda, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIKMEERAVALI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: r HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION N0.5572 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the Confirmation Order vide Notice NO.8/1009/MDPA/U/2025, dated 19.02.2025 under Section 228(3) of 1965 and under Section 89(3) of APMR & UDA Act, 2016 to contravention of 1. APM Act, the Petitioner on the ground that there is a G.O.Ms.No.128, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) dated 22.05.2015 and The Andhra Pradesh Regulation Department and Penalization Deviation A.P. Building Ruies, 2015' ). of Buildings Constructed Unauthorizedly and in of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2015 (for short The The brief facts of the case are as follows;- 2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the Plot No.22 situated in Sy.No.515 of TKN Annamayya Nagar, Madanapalle, having purchased the same under a registered vide document bearing No.8215 of 2021. The said property assessed to the Municipal tax vide Assessment Annamayya District Sale Deed was said to be No. 1009030131. As the Petitioner was proceeding with the construction without any approved plan, a provisional notice was issued to her on vide Notice NO.8/1009/MDP/UC/2025 proposing to initiate 28.01.2025 action for proceeding with construction in violation of the APMC Act, 1995 and AMR & UDA Act, 2016. For which, the Petitioner submitted reply through online stating that she is awaiting the plan approval. her not found satisfactory, the Respondent No.2- As the reply was Municipality passed the impugned order stating that the repiy given by satisfactory and directed the Petitioner to bring 3. the Petitioner is not 2 «!r down the construction into the rule frame within 7 receipt of notice, otherwise action will be initiated against the constructions, by the Respondent No.2 as per the provisions of the Act. 4. Heard M/s Shaik Meeravali, learned Counsel for the and Sri Gudapati Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel Respondent No.2-Municipality. days from the date of Petitioner for the 5. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Provisional notice was not served to the Petitioner, notice may not be much significance, as the Petitioner does not have any approved building plan. Therefore, the construction that is being made by the Petitioner in the absence of the building plan non-service of is not inconsonance with the provisions of the Act and the impugned order per se may not be found to be contradicted there. 6. The reliance placed by the Petitioner for regularization of the construction made under the provisions of The A.P. 2015 vide G.O.Ms.No.128, Municipal Administration Development (M) Department, dated 22.05.2015 is misplaced as those Rules apply to buildings constructed after 01.01.1985 31.12.2014 as per Rules 1 & 2 thereof. The learned Petitioner on instructions submits that a fresh application will be made per A.P. Building Rules, 2017 seeking for approval of the building plan and that the construction would be building plan is approved by the Respondent authorities. 7. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2- Municipality while answering the allegation that provisional notice on instructions submits that the Respondent No.2- Municipality had issued the provisional notice acknowledged by the Writ Petitioner. As regards the submission Building Rules, and Urban and before counsel for the as proceeded only after the non-service of and the same is made UK-,., 3 by the learned counsel for the Petitioner to proceed with the construction only after the plan is approved, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the building is liable for demolition as there is contravention of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the Petitioner to make an application for approval of building plan as per the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 within a period of two (2) weeks and only after the building plan is approved, the Petitioner shall proceed with the construction. 8. Further, the Respondent No.2-Municipality shall pass orders on the application made by the Petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the application of the Petitioner. Till such exercise is completed, no coercive action for demolition of the construction of the building of the Petitioner shall be taken in view of the impugned proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 10. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, MA and UD Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Madanapalle Municipality, Madanapalle Annamayya District. 3. One CC to Sri Shaik Meeravali, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalities[OPUCl 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb 7=1 HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 ^ ANDW^^ ORDER 5 I 2 7 MAR 2025 oV WP.No.5572 of 2025 CO ft^ Current Section Si^eSPATCV^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS