APHC010220332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 518 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-22 [3552] Guduri Ashok Kumar ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. P. Bala Dastagiri Advocates for Respondents : GP for Revenue, Mr. A. S. C.Bose, Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations, GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th March 2026 P C : In the present Writ Appeal, the petitioner/appellant herein challenges the notice issued under Sections 405 and 406 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, by the City Planner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. It is stated that the said notice could have only been issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation and not by the said officer. 2. Apart from this, the stand of the appellant is that the land alleged to have been encroached upon by the appellant, on which some construction has been raised, belongs to the Revenue Department and, therefore, it is only 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.518 of 2025 the provisions of the Land Enroachment Act, 1905, which would be applicable and if at all any notice of eviction could be issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar concerned. 3. The stand of the official respondents is that the land in question, which is encroached upon by the appellant falls in Adavitakkellapadu Village, which has since been ordered, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.279, MA & UD (ELEC.II) Department, dated 12.07.2012, to be made a part of the Guntur Municipal Corporation. The said G.O.Ms.No.279 has been issued in exercise of the powers vested in the Government in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. If that be so, which position is not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant, then the argument that it was the jurisdictional Tahsildar who was competent to issue the notice in question is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected. 4. The other issue that has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is whether the City Planner could have been permitted to exercise the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Sections 405 and 406 of the Act of 1955. Although initially learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the powers which are otherwise exercisable by the Commissioner under the Act of 1955 could be delegated in terms of Section 119 of the Act of 1955, and although learned counsel for the respondents had earlier drawn our attention to an order, dated 17.10.2024, issued by the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, whereby one, Sri D. Rambabu, who holds the position 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.518 of 2025 of City Planner, was empowered to exercise jurisdiction in regard to signing of notices for eviction of encroachments, etc., yet it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said power would be limited only to signing of notices for eviction and not for purposes of passing final notices under Section 405 & 406 of the Act of 1955, which power still remains to be exercised by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. 5. If that be so, then, in our opinion, the final notice issued under Section 405 & 406 of the Act of 1955 by the City Planner would become unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. Notwithstanding the above, we permit the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, considering the explanation tendered by the appellant in response to the notices issued by the City Planner. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, shall consider the explanation so tendered and pass a speaking order. 6. The view expressed by the learned single Judge in the circumstances above that the City Planner had been authorized to exercise powers which are otherwise vested in the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation by virtue of the provisions of Section 119 of the Act of 1955, in our opinion, is unsustainable. The Judgment and Order impugned, dated 23.04.2025, is accordingly set aside. 7. The Commissioner shall proceed further in the matter as observed hereinabove. 4 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.518 of 2025 8. The present Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 5 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.518 of 2025 14 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.A.No.518 of 2025 Dt: 07.03.2026 kbs