1 APHC010306292020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 20287/2020 & W.P.No.20202 of 2020 W.P.No.20287 of 2020 Between: 1. CHEEDELLA NAGA VENKATA RANGA RAO,, S/O. CH.SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 46YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. H.N 34-4-9B, MANDELAVARI VEEDHI, PALAKOLLU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE PALAKOLLU MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PALAKOLLU, WEST GODAVARI. ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing Notice vide Roc.No.989/2014/G1, dt.15.10.2020 without passing any orders on the explanation dt. 29.10.2020, submitted by the petitioner, and trying to demolish structures at Door No.34-4-9B, Mandelavari Veedhi, Devuni Thota, Palakollu, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the 2 A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, and APMRUDA Act, 2016, and consequently set aside the Notice vide Roc.No.989/2014/G1, dt.15.10.2020 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to suspend the Notice in Roc.No.989/2014/G1, dt. 15.10.2020 of the 2nd respondent, by directing the 2nd respondent not to demolish the structures at Door No. 34-4-9B, Mandelavari Veedhi, Devuni Thota, Palakollu, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI SC For MUNICIPALITIES 2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 3 The Court made the following Common Order: As the issues raised in both these writ petitions relate to the same subject matter, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri Polisetti Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Smt. V. Sirisha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the endorsement dated 05.10.2020 and the endorsement dated 15.10.2020. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued the said endorsements by referring to the address of the petitioner as 41-1-1, whereas the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 45044 of 2018 referred to the petitioner’s address as 34-4-098. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the 2nd respondent and categorically informed that the petitioner is neither connected with nor interested in the property bearing D.No. 41-1-1 or the property bearing D.No. 34-4-098. The petitioner has constructed a residential house bearing D.No. 34-4-9B, and municipal permission was also granted for the premises bearing D.No. 34-4- 9B. It is further submitted that, at the behest of the some third parties, the 2nd respondent issued these impugned proceedings calling upon the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorised construction below the water tank. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner has paid the penalty as determined by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakollu, and an amount 4 of Rs.2,68,678/- was deposited into the account of the Additional Civil Judge, Palakollu, on 24.07.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner paid the said amount pursuant to Section 340 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and that, at any rate, the 2nd respondent could not have initiated any action against the subject construction for which the petitioner had paid the compounding fee. 5. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.198, payment of the penalty for an unauthorised construction would not regularise the said construction nor amount to issuance of an order regularising such unauthorised construction. It is also submitted that Section 85(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act would not render the unauthorised construction as deemed to have been regularised on payment of penalty. The impugned notices would refer to the premises bearing No. 41-1-1, whereas the premises bearing No. 34-4-098 is referred to in the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 45044 of 2019. The Municipal permission was sanctioned for the premises bearing D.No. 34-4- 9B. Admittedly, there is an error committed by the 2nd respondent in issuing the notices to a wrong address and accordingly, the impugned proceedings would have to be set aside, leaving it open to the 2nd respondent to issue appropriate proceedings and grant an opportunity to the petitioner before taking any action on the subject construction, if any action is required. 6. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________ HARINATH.N,J RJS 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 20287/2020 & W.P.No.20202 of 2020 Dt: 11.08.2026 RJS