Writ petition challenging demolition order for unauthorized construction. Court set aside the confirmation order, directed petitioner to submit explanation, and ordered enquiry before further action.
Impugned confirmation order set aside; stay on demolition pending enquiry.
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.
-W
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR '
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 25421 OF 2024
Between;
...PETITIONER ^
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2 nd Respondent herein in initiating steps to demolish the Petitioner's entire construction i.e. Residential House bearing No. 1/278-4, situated in S.No.824 in an extent of Ac.0.02.22 Cents, Sunkulamma Palem, Revenue Ward No. 1, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District, A.P (hereinafterreferredtoas 'Residential House'), purportedly basing on a confirmation order vide Notice No. 181/1007/TDR/UC/2021 dated. 28.02.2022, without conducting any physical inspection of the Petitioner's premises, without passing any speaking or well- reasoned order by issuing fresh notice/s, as arbitrary.
illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice.Contrarytotheprovisions of 'Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, besidesbeing violation of petitioners-rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the confirmation order issued by the 2nd Respondent herein vide Notice No.181/1007 /TDR/UC/2021 dated.28.02.2022.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 herein not totakeanycoercive measures including that of demolition of Petitioner’s ResidentialHouse bearing No. 1/278-4, situated in S.No.824 in an extentofAc.0.02.22Cents, Sunkulamma Palem, Revenue Ward No. 1, Tadipatri, AnanthapurDistrict, A.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. SIREESHA RANI
VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010492632024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3233]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 25421/2024
Between:
B Lakshmi Narayana
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent{S):
1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2.
- This writ petition is filed questioning the ConfirmationOrders issued by the respondent No.2, dated 28.02.2022 directing the petitioner to remove the deviated portion of the subjectconstruction
2
HBKM, J W.P.No.25421of2024
within seven (07) days from the date of receipt ofthesaidnoticeonthe ground that no reply was submitted to the above saidShowCause Notice, dated 30.03.2021.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that the Provisional Order Notice / Show Cause Notice, dated 30.03.2021 appears to have been issued during the Covid-19 Pandemic period. As the petitioner was ignorant of the same, he could not submit any explanation. However, if an opportunity is given, he would submit his explanation to the above said Show Cause Notice, dated 30.03.2021.
- On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearingfor the respondent No.2 submits that if the petitioner submits his explanation, the same will be considered by following the due procedure by the respondent No.2 Municipality. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation, if any, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to theabovesaidShow Cause Notice, dated 30.03.2021 to the respondent No.2 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt ofthisorder. On receipt of the same, the respondent No.2 shall proceed with the necessary enquiry, strictly in accordance with law, pursuant to the
3
HBKMJ W.P.No.25421 of 2024
above said Show Cause Notice, dated 30.03.2021 by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject building construction appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter, For the purpose of conducting the above said enquiry, the impugned Confirmation Orders, dated 28.02.2022 is set aside herewith. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive action and there shall not be any further construction.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,shall stand
closed.
/
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.25421 of 2024
a: 2 3 NOV 202't rr
O 03
^ . Current Section . ^
H;gfSPATC«g^
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the confirmation order for demolition was arbitrary and violated natural justice due to lack of inspection and hearing?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
B. Lakshmi Narayana
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Tadipatri Municipality
B Krishna Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
