Disposed

Vempati Suryanarayana, W.G.Dist., and Anr. v. Eluru Mun.Corp.,Rep.by Commnr.,W.G.Dist.

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2024WP/9205/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a municipal corporation's notice to demolish a building. The court held that while the petitioners allegedly violated construction permissions and encroached on land, no adjudication has been made on their explanation. It directed the Commissioner to consider the explanation within six weeks and restrained coercive s

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to consider the explanation within six weeks. The respondent authorities are prohibited from taking coercive steps against the petitioners' property pending such orders.

Vempati Suryanarayana, W.G.Dist., and Anr. Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9205 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vempati Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Veerabhadraiah, aged 57 years, Occ: Daily Wage Service R/o. 4-415/10, Agraharam, Eluru,^{WestGodavariDistrict.}

¶8

Vempati Venkata Rajamani, W/o. Vempati Suryanarayana, aged 52 years, Occ: Household R/o. 4-415/10, Agraharam, Eluru, West^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

Eluru Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner^{Eluru,WestGodavari} District.

¶12

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

¶13

R2 is impleaded as per the Court Order dt 29.01.2024^{videorderpassedinI.A.}

¶14

01 of 2023.

¶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 be pleased to issue a writ petition, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent in contemplating to demolish building property constructed in the site of petitioner bearing T.S. No. 712 of admeasuring 80 sq. yds. bearing Door No. 4-4-15/10^{situatedinAgraharam} Area of respondent's Municipal Corporation Limits and also notice in UC No. 2/2012, dt. 12-01-2012 and further notice dt. 29-02-2012 issued by the respondent without considering explanations submitted by petitioners^{andwithoutpassingany} order thereon as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Hyderabad^{MunicipalCorporation} Act, 1955 and rules framed there under and offends^{Articles14,21and300-Aof} Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent^{nottodemolishany} portion of said building property.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012fWPMP. NO: 11627 OF 2012)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent not to demolish petitioners' building property constructed in the site bearing T.S. No. T.S. No. 712 of admeasuring 80 sq. yds. bearing Door No. 4-4-15/10 situated in Agraharam Area of respondent's Municipal Corporation Limits, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI.M. MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP )

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.9205 OF 2012

¶25

Vempati Suryanarayana, S/o late Veerabhadraiah, Aged 57 years, Occ: Daily wage Service, R/o 4-415./10, Agraharam, Eluru, West Godavari District and another. ... Petitioner

¶26

Versus

¶27

Eluru Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Eluru, West Godavari District and another.

¶28

... Respondents

¶29

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Sita Ram Chaparla Counsel for respondents : Sri M.Manohar Reddy, standing counsel.

¶30

;ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent-corporation in contemplating to demolish the building bearing D.No.4-4-15/10 in T.S.No.712 admeasuring 80 Sq.yards in Agraharam Area of Eluru Municipal Corporation and the notice in UC No.2/2012, dated 12.01.2012 and further notice dated 29.02.2012, are illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Abhishek, learned counsel representing

SRSJ WP No.9205/2012

Page 2 of 4

Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2^1^ petitioner was assigned house site patta in^T.S.No.712 in 80 Sy.yards. The husband of the 2"^^ petitioner^i.e.the petitioner obtained permission vide BA No.76/2011-Gl, dated 08.08.2011 from the Corporation for construction of G+1 building. Notice was issued by the Eluru Municipal Corporation to the 1®^ petitioner vide S.C No.2/2012,^dated 12.01.2012 under Section 452 and 461 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 pointing out violations.^The l®t petitioner submitted explanation for the said notice. Another notice dated 29.02.2012 was issued under Sections 405, 406 and 450 of A.P.Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 for which, reply was submitted on 09.03.2012 through Advocate. He would submit that without considering^the explanation, the authorities are trying to demolish the structure.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentCorporation, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of G+1,

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

SRSJ WP No.9205/2012

¶41

however, the petitioner constructed G+2. The petitioner^also encroached upon municipal land in T.S.No.715. He would also submit that the explanation submitted by the petitioners will be considered objectively and appropriate orders^willbe passed.

¶42

In view of the instructions of learned counsel for the respondents, without going into other disputed questions of facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the^learned Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation to consider^the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law^within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy^ofthe order. Till such time, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the petitioners’ property. No costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. shall stand closed.

¶44

Sd/. P.U.V. BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT registrar

//TRUE COPY//

FFICER -^cnTSECTIO

To,

The Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru,^WestGodavari District.

¶49

The Principal Secretary to Municipal Administration^{andUrbabDevelopment} Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi^Amaravati Guntur District.

¶50

One CC to SRI. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. M. MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND^MUNCCORP) Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Three C.D.Copies nm gi

HIGH COURT

DATED: 12/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.9205 of 2012

-fcopteS. TlWf

DISPOSING OFTHE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Vempati Suryanarayana, W.G.Dist., and Anr. v. Eluru Mun.Corp.,Rep.by Commnr.,W.G.Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vempati Suryanarayana, W.G.Dist., and Anr. v. Eluru Mun.Corp.,Rep.by Commnr.,W.G.Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasimalla Srinivasa Rao at Srinu Vs the State of Ap

Mungara Bhagavan Sankara Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sacchi Nagamani Vs the State of Ap

The New Shopping Complex Municipal Vegetable Market Association Vs the State of Ap

A Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Duppada Papa Rao, Visakhapatnam Vs the v.C., Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority