Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9876 (AP)

KASETTY SEKHAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/5963/2025 · 2025-03-12

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010110182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5963/2025 Between: 1. KASETTY SEKHAR, S/O. PEDDA CHENAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55YEARS,R/O GADDAMVARIPALLI, MYDUKUR,YSR KADAPADISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MYDUKUR MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MYDUKUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 4. K RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. PEDDA CHENAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58YEARS,R/O GADDAMVARIPALLI, MYDUKUR,YSR KADAPADISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein in not acting upon the representation dated 29-01-2025 made by the Petitioner with regard to illegal/unauthorized raising of structure in Sy.no. 821 of SRS,J W.P.No.5963 of 2025 Gaddamvaripalli, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, violation of principals of natural justice and in contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal corporation Act, 1981 and rules there under and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the illegal/unauthorized structures made in the aforementioned Sy.no. and pass IA 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 may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider my representation dated 29-01-2025 made in relation to illegal structure that is being raised in raising in Sy.No. 821 of Gaddamvaripalli, Mydukur YSR Kadapa District by encroaching the road pending disposal of the writ petition before this Honble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 & 3 in not acting upon the representation dated 29.01.2025, made by the petitioner regarding the illegal/unauthorized structure made by respondent No.4 in Sy.No.821 of Gaddamvaripalli, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel representing Smt. V. Sirisha Rani, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.2 and Sri K. Bhagat Singh, SRS,J W.P.No.5963 of 2025 learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for respondent No.3. Notice of respondent No.4 is dispensed with since no orders are passed against the right and interest of respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner, resident of House bearing D.No.3-57 in Sy.No.821/1, made a representation dated 29.01.2025 (Ex.P1), regarding the unauthorized structure, made by respondent No.4. However, no action has been initiated. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel submitted the instructions of the learned Commissioner, Mydukur Municipality. As seen from the instructions, respondent No.2 set the law into motion and issued provisional 01/1164/WPRS, dated 17.01.2025 to respondent No.4. Thereafter, a confirmation order 02/1164/WPRS, dated 27.01.2025 was issued, directing the respondent No.4 to stop further construction as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1965. Respondent No.4 submitted an explanation dated 06.02.2025. Learned counsel would also submit that respondent No.2 will pass appropriate orders and proceed further as per the Municipality Act, 1965. 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and since respondent No.2 set the law into motion, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the learned respondent No.2 to proceed further, strictly as per law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 12.03.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.5963 of 2025 114 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.5963 OF 2025 Date : 12.03.2025 TVN