Disposed

Nidimolu Venkateswar Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2023WP/2581/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the stopping of compound wall construction by the 3rd respondent and threatened demolition. The Court granted time for objections to a show cause notice, directed maintenance of status quo, and mandated future adherence to proper notice procedures.

What did the court decide?

Time of two weeks granted to petitioner to submit objections; further six weeks for 3rd respondent to complete process; status quo maintained.

Nidimolu Venkateswar Rao Vs the State of Ap — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.2581 of 2023

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner, who is an owner of house bearing No.9-35 of Lakshmipuram Village, Darbagudem Gram Panchayat, Jeeligimilli Mandal, Eluru District, had commenced construction of a compound wall around the existing house.

¶4

The petitioner has approached this Court with the complaint that the construction of the said compound wall is being stopped by 3^rd respondent and that the 3^rd respondent is threatening to demolish the house itself.

¶5

Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that these actions have been taken by the 3^rd respondent without issuing any notice of any nature and without following the procedure established by law.

¶6

Sri N. Srihari, the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for the 3^rd respondent, on instructions, submits that the 3^rd respondent had issued a notice on 29.12.2022 to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the compound wall being constructed by the

¶7

¶8

petitioner should not be removed as no permission had been obtained for the same.

¶9

Sri N. Srihari, the learned Standing Counsel would also submit that notice was issued as the petitioner was encroaching into the grama kantam land by constructing the said compound wall.

¶10

The said notice also does not make any mention of demolition of the house or removal of the house which is in existence.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by granting a further time of two (02) weeks from today to the petitioner to submit his objections to the said show cause notice. The 3^rd respondent, after receipt of the objections, shall pass necessary orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

Needless to state, status quo existing as on today shall be maintained by both sides, till the aforesaid process is completed. Time of six (06) weeks is given to the 3^rd respondent to complete the aforesaid process.

¶13

Needless to say, any steps taken in relation to the house of the petitioner shall be undertaken only after proper notice is given by citing reasons for the issuance of a show cause notice

¶14

¶15

and the provision of law by which the said show cause notice is being issued.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

07.02.2023 MJA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.2581 of 2023

¶24

07.02.2023

¶25

MJA

Nidimolu Venkateswar Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidimolu Venkateswar Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Vasudeva Naidu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P Suryanarayana Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Dalli Veeranna Vs the State of Ap

Tavva Hanumanta Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S K Chandra Shekar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Peddi Subhashini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh