1 APHC010234072021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13404/2021 Between: 1. N INDIRAMMA, W/O T.MADDILET, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO.42/1C, COLES COLLAGE COMPOUND, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KURNOOL, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 2'd respondent in issuing the Conformation Order dated 05.07.2021 vide Notice No.1096/101/1016 / KNIAJC/2021 issued by the 2nd respondent is bad, arbitrary illegal, in violative of Principles of Natural Justice against the Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently set aside the Conformation Order dated 05.07.2021 vide Notice No.1096/101/1016 / KNL/UC/2021 issued by the 2nd respondent issued by the 2nd respondent 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 stay of all further proceedings in the Conformation Order dated 05.07.2021 vide Notice NO.1096/101/1016/KNL/UC/2021 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALAVA SURESH KUMAR REDDY ( SC FOR MC RAYAL REGION, NELLORE) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13404 of 2021 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the confirmation order dated 05.07.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 06.06.2021, calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply on the shortfalls noticed therein. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s property stated to have no access to a public road and, on that ground, the proposed construction of the petitioner was sought to be stalled and the building permission was proposed to be revoked. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice and categorically informed that the petitioner’s property forms part and parcel of the residential quarters meant for the residences of the staff and employees of Coles College. It is further submitted that the entire compound is surrounded by 30-feet road on the northern side, a 60-feet road on the southern side, and a 30-feet on the western side. As such, there is no necessity for the petitioner to earmark any other road within the compound and as such, a detailed reply was submitted to the 2nd respondent for their consideration. 3. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, unmindful of the said reply, passed the confirmation order by erroneously stating that the petitioner failed to submit any reply to the show cause notice. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed O.S.No.811 of 2014 on the file of the Principal 4 Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, seeking specific performance against the vendor. Pursuant to the decree passed in favor of the petitioner, a sale deed was executed on 28.09.2015. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, admitted that the petitioner submitted a reply. However, it is stated therein that there was no approach road to the petitioner’s property and, on that ground, the confirmation order was issued. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that a detailed counter has been filed. It is submitted that the petitioner demolished the old structure and commenced new construction without obtaining prior permission. It is submitted that the petitioner subsequently applied online for building permission by paying the requisite fee. The confirmation order was issued only after the staff visited the site and found that there was no approach road to the petitioner’s property. It is also submitted that the petitioner ought to have applied for permission for demolition of the old house and construction of a new house, instead of proceeding without any permission. The building permit order dated 27.05.2021 is filed along with the counter, whereby the petitioner was permitted to construct a ground floor admeasuring 153.94 square meters. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed the construction and is presently residing therein. It is 5 further submitted that the petitioner cannot be called upon to perform a task which is impossible. When the entire compound of the Coles College, including the residential quarters meant for the staff, is surrounded by roads, each individual residential unit cannot be expected to have a separate earmarked road to the public road abutting the compound wall. Reliance is placed on C.R.Reddy Law College Employees’ Association v. Bar Council of India and others1. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the confirmation order would show that it categorically states that the petitioner neither submitted a reply nor stopped construction nor demolished the building structure. However, the record would show that the petitioner submitted a reply on 09.06.2021, which is duly endorsed by the 2nd respondent. That apart, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have admitted that the petitioner submitted a reply. However, the same was not considered solely on the ground that the petitioner was unable to earmark an approach road connecting the property to the main road. 9. Considering the submission that the petitioner’s property forms part and parcel of the residential layout within the compound of Coles College, and that the petitioner purchased the said property pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.811 of 2014 and the sale deed was executed in favor of the petitioner. The boundaries mentioned in the sale deed 1 2004 SCC Online AP 560 6 clearly show that the petitioner’s property is bounded on all sides by the property of Coles College and that the entire compound has access to public roads on three sides. The objection raised by the 2nd respondent, calling upon the petitioner to earmark a separate access road, does not stand the scrutiny of law or logic. 10. On these considerations, the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:07.01.2026 NKA 7 223 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13404 of 2021 Date: 07.01.2025 NKA