Disposed

Malepati Radharam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 May 2024WP/1557/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two interconnected writ petitions challenging municipal proceedings regarding construction deviations and title disputes. The Court permitted the petitioner in W.P. 1557 to raise all grounds before the authority via a fresh notice and closed the suit for title without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

The Municipality directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in W.P. 1557/2024; Writ Petitions 1557 and 7881 disposed of with no order as to costs.

Malepati Radharam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

, i !

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1557 AND 7881 2024

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1557 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Malepati Radharam, S/o Late Munniramaiah Aged about 56 years, R/o D.No.19/137, Silumgari Street, Badvel road, MydukurTown, YSR Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of MA and UD, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,^Guntur District.

¶13

The Mydukur Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Mydukur Town, YSR Kadapa.

¶14

The Town Planning Officer, Mydukur Municipality, Mydukur Town, YSR Kadapa

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶17

be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring^{theactionofthe} Respondents more particularly the action of Respondent No.2 herein in Proceedings bearing Roc.No.02/G1/2024, Dt.18.01.2024 directing the Petitioner herein to attend a personal hearing without providing any

¶18

‘ material to substantiate the allegations and further seeking to adjudicate ''tltje di_spute as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, violative of the provisions of the Act.No.II of 1955 and the Act.No.6 of 1965 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and Consequently to set-aside the Proceedings bearing Roc.No.02/G1/2024, Dt.18.01.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 suspend the Proceedings bearing Roc.No.02/G1/2024, Dt.18.01.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶22

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 direct the. Respondents not to interfere^{withconstructionand} construction activity being undertaken by the Petitioner in schedule property admeasuring an extent of 101.38 Sq.Meters (about 120 Sq.Yards) situate in T.S.No.189 beating Premises No.9/676, Nandyal Road, Mydukur Town/ Municipality, pending disposal of the above Writ^Petition.

¶23

t t

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.ASHWANI KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND^URBAN

¶26

DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR

¶28

MUNICIPALITIES)

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 7881 OF 2024

¶30

Between:

¶31

Malepati Raghunath, S/o. M. Muniramaiah, Aged about 47years,Residing at D.No.10/7, Badvel Road,Mydukur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶35

The Mydukur Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Mydukur Town, YSR Kadapa District.

¶36

The Town Planning Officer, Mydukur Municipality,Mydukur Town, YSR Kadapa District.

¶37

Malepati Radharam, S/o.Late.Munniramaiah, Aged about 56 years,Residing at D.No. 19/137, Silumgari Street, Badvel Road,Mydukur Town, YSR Kadapa Disrtrict.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

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 particularly one in the

¶40

nature of Writ of declaring the Respondent No.2 and 3 against the illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by the Respondent^No.4 in the land measuring an extent of Ac.0.2 1/2 cents in D.No. 9/676, Nandyal Road in an extent of Ac.0.2 V2 Sy.Nos.189, situated at N, Mydukur Village, Mydukur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District contrary to the building permit order vide 1164/0033/B/MYD/NR/2023 dated 11.09.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Act, 2014 and the Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Buildings Constructed Unauthorizedly^and in Deviation to the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2019 besides being opposed to the very spirit and nature of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to demolish/remove the permanent structures/building carried out by the Respondent^No.4 in the land measuring an extent of Ac.0.2 1/2 cents in D.No. 9/676, Nandyal Road in Sy.Nos.189, situated at N. Mydukur Village, Mydukur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District by considering the representations dated 06.02.2024 and 22.02.2024.

¶41

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶42

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 and 3 to desist the Respondent No 4 from carrying out construction activity in the premises by considering the representations dated 06.02.2024 and 22.02.2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

Between:

Malepati Raghunath S/o. M. Muniramaiah, Aged about 47years,Residing at D.No.10/7, Badvel Road.Mydukur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶48

...VACATE PETITIONER/ RESP0NDENT.N0.4 IN WRIT PETITION

¶49

AND

¶50

Malepati Radharam, S/o.Late.Munniramaiah Aged about 56 years,Residing at D.No. 19/137, Silumgari Street, Badvel Road.Mydukur Town, YSR Kadapa Disrtrict.

¶51

...RESPONDENTSA/VRIT PETITIONER

¶52

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary,Municipal} Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶53

The Mydukur Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner,^MydukurTown, YSR Kadapa District.

¶54

The Town Planning Officer, Mydukur Municipality,Mydukur^Town,YSR Kadapa District.

¶55

...RESP0NDETNS/RESP0NDENTS.N0.1 to 3 in WRIT PETITION

¶56

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 vacate the interim orders dated 01.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.7881 of 2024 otherwise, the Respondent No.4^{hereinwillbeputto} irreparable loss, injury and injustice.

¶57

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VUBBARA DUSHYANTH^REDDY

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMNISTRATION

¶59

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶60

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3; SRI N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR

¶61

MUNICIPALITIES)

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE

¶63

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

[3332]

APHC010027332024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶68

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶71

WRIT PETITION NO: 1557/2024

¶72

Between:

¶73

Malepati Radharam ...PETITIONER

¶74

AND

¶75

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶76

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶77

1.N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶79

1.N RANGA REDDY (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR) 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶80

The Court made the following:

¶81

APHC010152632024

¶82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶83

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶84

PRESENT

¶85

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶86

WRIT PETITION NO: 7881/2024

Between:

Malepati Raghunath

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶92

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶93

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶94

1.VUBBARA DUSHYANTH REDDY

¶95

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶96

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶97

The Court made the following:

¶98

COMMON ORDER:

¶99

The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.7881 of 2024 is that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are not taking any action against the illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by the respondent No.4 in the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.2y2 cents in D.No.9/676, Nandyal Road in Survey Nos. 189, situated at N.Mydukur Village, Mydukur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District contrary to the building permit order vide 1164/0033/B/MYD/NR/2023 dated 11.09.2023. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 is that respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings bearing Roc.No:02/G1/2024 , dated 18.01.2024 directing the petitioner to attend a personal hearing without providing any material to substantiate allegations and further seeking to adjudicate the title disputes.

¶100

-- -j

¶101

^ 3 The petitioner in the W.P.No.1557 of 2024 is the respondent in other Writ Petition.

¶102

As the issue in both the writ petitions is inter connected,^boththewrit petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶103

Heard Sri V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7881 of 2024 and Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 (4‘^ respondent in W.P.No.7881 of 2024) and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the Municipality. 6. Sri Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner^{inW.P.No.7881} of 2024, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit^submitted that the 4 th respondent obtained building permission from the 2"^^ respondent in order to construct building and taking advantage of the petitioners’ absence. respondent No.4 encroached the petitioners’ land and proceeded with construction without leaving setbacks and in those circumstances several representations were given to respondent No.2 but no action was taken though it is their bounden duty to take action if building is constructed contrary to the building plan.

¶104

On the other hand, Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024, who is also representing the very same petitioner as a respondent in other writ petition, submitted that the petitioner has received a show notice dated 21.12.2023 from the municipality asking the petitioner to submit explanation by bringing certain shortfalls. To the said

¶105

notice the petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.01.2024 duly requesting ^ the authorities to furnish supporting material for answering the shortfalls so mentioned in the notice by reserving the petitioner right to submit further explanation. In spite of receiving the said explanation without furnishing the material in support of the short falls so raised in the said notice, the authorities concerned issued the impugned notice asking the petitioner to appear on 19.01.2024 for hearing. Impugning the said notice, the present writ petition is filed. The authority concerned without furnishing the material as sought by the petitioner in the explanation if they proceed with the enquiry and pass any order it will affect the rights of the petitioner. Further in the notice, it was categorically stated that the petitioner has to prove his title. This itself shows that, the authority has an intention even to decide the civil dispute while adjudicating. Further, without furnishing the material sought by the petitioner if hearing takes place, the petitioners right would be affected. It is settled law that until and then the material is supplied, the authority cannot pass any orders by relying on the same. As such, prayed to pass appropriate order by setting aside the impugned orders. 8. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even earlier show cause notice has been questioned by the petitioner vide W.P.33599 of 2023 and this Court disposed of the same directing the petitioner to submit explanation and in due compliance of the said order, the petitioner has submitted explanation. He further contended that the petitioner in W.P.No.7881 of 2024 earlier filed writ petition No. 1557 of

¶106

2024, wherein this Court directed to approach Civil Court where suits are pending. However, suppressing the same, the petitioner^{inW.P.No.1554of} 2024 filed writ petition. There are no merits in W.P.No.7881 of 2024 and the same deserves dismissal.

¶107

Perused the record.

¶108

It is not in dispute that a building permission has been granted in favor of the petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 and there is dispute between the petitioners in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 and 7881 of 2024. The main grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.7881 of 2024 is that while constructing the building by the petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 certain deviations^have been made contrary to the building permission and the said fact of deviations, in spite of bringing to the notice of the municipality, no action^hasbeen initiated. As such, he has filed the writ petition. The other writ petition was filed on the ground that though the petitioner therein requested to furnish material in support of the shortfalls in order to file a detailed explanation to the notice issued by the Municipality, as the said Municipality without furnishing the same issued the impugned notice asking the petitioner to appear for hearing by fixing a date and proceeding with the enquiry.

¶109

Admittedly, respective suits have been filed against^{eachotherforbare} injunction and the same are pending adjudication. It is also not in dispute that there is no injunction in favour of respective petitioners. No doubt, the Municipality cannot decide the title while adjudicating^{theissueofdeviations.}

¶110

Whether there are any deviation or not, the suits that are pending would not ^ come in the way. The Municipality can as well adjudicate in that regard. As the respondent - Municipality has already set the law into motion, there remains nothing to answer to the petitioner’s grievance in W.P.No.7881 of 2024.

¶111

The petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 has not raised any valid legal grounds warranting interference of this Court with the impugned notice issued by the Municipality - dated 18.01.2024 wherein the authority has directed the petitioner to appear for hearing, the petitioner can raise all the grounds that are raised now before the authority. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the allegation raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 are premature.

¶112

In these circumstances, there is no purpose in keeping the Writ Petitions pending and inviting the counters. As such, these Writ Petitions are liable to be disposed of with the following direction.

¶113

“The respondent - Municipality shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in W.P.No.1557 of 2024 and the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds that are raised and urged before this Court before the concerned authority and thereupon the authority shall further enquire pursuant to the said show cause notice and pass reasoned order in accordance with law by duly taking into consideration the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner.

¶114

¶115

It is well settled that any adjudication authority^hasto serve all the material on which they want to rely to the party concerned.”

¶116

As stated supra, the authority has already set the law into motion. As such, no orders are required to be passed in W.P.No,7881 of 2024.

¶117

Accordingly, these Writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶118

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ

¶119

Petitions, shall also stand closed.

¶120

SDI- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶121

SECTION OFFICER

¶122

To Secretary, Department of Municipal Administeration and

¶123

Urban Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velaqapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. a k .

¶124

pe Commissioner, Mydukur Municipality, Mydukur Town YSR Kadapa.

¶125

The Town Planning Officer, Mydukur Municipality, Mydukur Town YSR Kadapa

¶126

One CC to Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶127

One CC to SRI Vubbara Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶128

Jwo CCs to GP Municipal Administration and Urban Development High Courtof Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶129

One CC to Sri N.Ranga Reddy (SC for Municipalities) Advocate [OPUC]

¶130

Three C.D Copies. MBT

t r

I. •> 4

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/05/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1557 and 7881 of 2024

¶137

5 2 6 DEC 2C2'i |
^ ^ Current Section . ^
^ATC

¶138

DISPOSING THE W.P

¶139

WITHOUT COSTS

Malepati Radharam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malepati Radharam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Saripalli Srilakshmi Harshitha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Krishna Main Road Building Owners Association (REG.NO.182/2022) Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothari Ramachandra Rao, Vs District Collector, Ongole,Prakasam District

M/s Garrison Constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ghantasala Dana Kumari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Borewells Vs the State of Ap