Writ petition seeking action against unauthorized construction by respondent 4; disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders with personal hearing within four weeks.
Direction to pass orders in accordance with law with personal hearing within four weeks; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
<br>
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 1394 OF 2024
Between:
L. Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Pedda Gangi Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ - F.P. Shop Dealer, R/o. D. No. 1/122, Bramhanapalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.
...PETITIONER
AND
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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in not taking any action on representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2023 in not to passing final order for demolition of unauthorised construction made by the 4‘^ respondent vide house bearing Door. No 15-244 within the limits of Puttaparthi Nagar Panchayat in Sri Sathya Sai Distirct is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2^^ respondent to pass final order for demolition of illegal structure of house bearingDoor. No. 15-244 within the limits of Puttaparthi Nagar Panchayat in Sri Sathya Sai District belongs to 4"" respondent.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 2"'^ respondent to pass final order for demolition of illegal structure of house bearing Door. No. 15-244 within the limits of Puttaparthi Nagar Panchayat
Si
in Sri Sathya Sai District belongs to 4*^ respondent pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K. SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI N. RANGA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P. NARAHARI BABU
The Court made the following: ORDER
0
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No. 1394 of 2024
L.Narasimha Reddy, S/o Pedda Gangi Reddy, aged about 64 years, Occ: F.P. Shop Dealer, R/o D.No.1/122, Brahmanapalli village. Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.
... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Municipality, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and three others.
... Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner
: Sri K.Srinivas
Counsel for respondent No.l : GP for Municipal Administration 86 Urban Development Counsel for respondents 2 86 3 : Sri N.Ranga Reddy
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of2^^ respondent in not taking any action on the representationof the petitioner dated 21.12.2023 qua the unauthorized construction made by the 4*^1 respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.
Page 2 of 3
SRSJ WP No. 1394 of 2024
- Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent. Along with counter affidavit, the proceedings of the Commissioner vide Letter.Roc.No.l37/2023/Gl dated 18.01.2024 was filed. A perusal of the proceedings dated 18.01.2024 would disclose that the provisional notice under Section 228 (1)(2)oftheA.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 was issued to 4^ respondent on 20.03.2023. The 4* respondent filed W.P.No.7684 of 2023 and the same was disposed of on 28.03.2023. Pursuant to said final order, the 4* respondent submitted explanation on 21.04.2023. Later, Confirmation Notice under Section 228 (1) 86 (2) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 was issued on
08.05.2023. The Commissioner by proceedings dated
18.01.2024 came to conclusion that the explanation submitted by the 4^^ respondent is not satisfactory and hence, directed him to submit final explanation within a period of three days, lest action will be imitated against the construction as per the provisions of the Act.
il'
Page 3 of 3
SRSJ WP No. 1394 of 2024
- The grievance of the petitioner, as pointed out supra,is that the respondent authorities are not initiating any action. However, as seen from the endorsement dated 18.01.2024, the learned Commissioner considered the explanation submitted by 4^^ respondent and having not satisfiedwiththe same, directed the 4^^ respondent to submit final explanation.
- In view of the same, without going into other disputed questions of fact, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2*1^ respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordancewith law, by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as 4^^ respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, if no order is passed till date, in accordance with law. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
shall stand closed.
Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
^ECTION OFFICER
/
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.1394 Of 2024
AND/y^
.,g 12 m 202‘i CO
^ Current Section
vv
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner should act on the petitioner's representation regarding unauthorized construction by respondent 4.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of given the proceedings dated 18.01.2024 already directed further action.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
L. Narasimha Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Municipality
Puttaparthi Nagara Panchayath
Town Planning Officer, Nagara Panchayath of Puttaparthi
M. Ranga Reddy
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
