APHC010331872022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19877 OF 2022 Between: 1. G. VENUGOPAL, S/O LATE RAMANAIAH, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O D.NO. 26-2-21, PLOT NO. 64, LAKSHMI SHRESHTA NILAYAM, RITWIK ENCLAVE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NELLORE, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, NELLORE, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. DAMAVARAPU DEEPAK KUMAR S/O D BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O 3RD FLOOR FLAT, LAKSHMI SRESHTA NILAYAM RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT, RITHWIK ENCLAVE, A K NAGAR, NELLORE - 524004 R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER CO DT 17/11/2022 VIDE IA 02/2022 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. KALAVA SURESH KUMAR REDDY ( SC FOR MC RAYAL REGION, NELLORE) 2 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Baggi Venkata Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in attempting to demolish the petitioner’s Residential Apartment complex in D.No.26-2-21 in Plot No.64, Lakshmi Shreshta Nilayam, Ritwik Enclave, A.K.Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, without issuing notice to the petitioner. 3. It is contended that the petitioner purchased the house site admeasuring an extent of 50 Ankanams or 334.45 Sq. Mtrs., bearing Plot No.64, Ritwik Enclave, A.K. Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The petitioner obtained building permission on 05.10.2018 for construction of a Residential Apartment Building consisting of G+3 floors over the subject property. The petitioner completed the construction of the building in subject land in accordance with the plan approved by the 2nd respondent. 4. It is further contended that, on 07.07.2022, the 2nd and 3rd respondents came to the subject property and threatened the petitioner with dispossession from the subject land without issuing any notice to the petitioner alleging raising one additional floor without authorization. It is further contended that the petitioner completed the construction pursuant to the approved building plan, however, the petitioner had constructed a small room on the terrace in 3 the subject building without obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent as a facility for a overnight rest. 5. The 2nd and 3rd respondents jointly filed a counter-affidavit, enclosing a copy of the proceedings dated 07.07.2022. It is stated that, as the petitioner had violated the conditions of the permission, the Corporation had rightly issued a show-cause notice dated 07.07.2022 and initiated proceedings for removal of the unauthorized structure after serving the show cause notice on the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such notice was served on the petitioner before filing of the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner ought to have been granted sufficient time to submit his explanation to the said notice and that the respondents cannot proceed with the demolition without providing him an opportunity of hearing. The action of the respondents in straightaway proposing to demolish the structure would be in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he prays for a direction to the respondents not to demolish the subject property without following due process of law. 7. Considered the submissions. 8. It appears from the record that the notice dated 07.07.2022 issued by the Municipal Corporation was received by the petitioner, and there is no challenge to the said proceedings in the present writ petition. 4 09. Apart from the same, the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the said show-cause notice, instead approached this Court. On 08.07.2022, this Court passed interim orders directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. In the interests of justice, this Court is of the view that an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation is essential. 10. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to file his explanation to the show- cause notice dated 07.07.2022 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon filing such explanation/objections, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 07.09.2026 BSK 5 107 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19877 OF 2022 Dated: 07.09.2026 BSK