Pvv Satyanarayana Vs Neelam Nagendra Prasad

P.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o. Appa Rao, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-4-1 MB Kummara Street Opp HDFC Bank Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District.

¶10

Sheik Anwar Bhasha, S/o. Late Bhasha, aged about 45 years Occ: Driver, R/o. 5-4-3, Kummmara Street, Ram nagar, Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District.

¶11

Sheik Abdul Aziz, S/o. Ismail, aged about 75 years^Occ;Retired RTC Driver,R/o 7-3-14 Big Masjid Street, Nidadavolu Town, East Godavari District.

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

Neelam Nagendra Prasad, S/o. Naga Raju Aged about 51 years, R/o. Door No 21716/2 Santhinagar, Nidadavole Town East Godavari District.

¶15

...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶16

/ Sr

¶17

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

¶18

The Nidadavole Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner Nidadavole East Godavari District.

¶19

The Town Planning officer. Town Planning Section Nidadavole East Godavari District It is submitted that 1,2 petitioners^{areresidentsof} Kummara Street and Masijid Street, Nidadolu Town, West^Godavari District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

lA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶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 suspend the operation of the orders in W.P.No.24356 of 2024 dt 28-10-2024 pending disposal of Main Writ Appeal.^

¶23

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI BOKKA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR MUINICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mrs. V. SIREESHA RANI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY "

¶26

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶27

APHC010022832025

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-52 AT AMARAVATI [3446]

¶29

WRIT APPEAL NO: 86 of 2025

¶30

P.V.V. Satyanarayana and others

¶31

...Appellants

¶32

Vs.

¶33

Neelam Nagendra Prasad and others

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

¶36

Advocate for Appellants Bokka Satyanarayana Kamla

¶37

Advocates for Respondents Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru - R1 & Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni - R2 & R3

¶38

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶39

SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶40

DATE : 6th February 2025

¶41

PC :

¶42

The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters^Patenthas been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 28.10.2024, passed in W.P.No.24356 of 2024.

¶43

The Writ Petition was filed by respondent No.1 in the present appeal challenging the orders passed by the Nidadavole^{Municipality/R3} on account of certain deviations in the approved building plans which had been submitted by the petitioner.

¶44

The learned single Judge, by virtue of judgment and order impugned, dated 28.10.2024, came to a conclusion that^{theconfirmationorder}

¶45

2

¶46

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.86 of 2025

¶47

had been passed by the said Municipality, without considering the explanation, dated 09.09.2024, submitted by the petitioner and without affording any ‘opportunity of being heard’ to the said petitioner.

¶48

Accordingly, the Writ Court proceeded to set aside the impugned confirmation order, dated 17.09.2024, and also remanded back the matter to the Nidadavole Municipality to consider the explanation,^{dated09.09.2024} and pass appropriate orders.

¶49

The learned single Judge also directed the said Municipality^nottotake any coercive steps against the petitioner, pending^{theconsideration} of the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶50

In the present Writ Appeal, learned counsel for the appellants states that despite the fact that the deviations had been made during the course of construction by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, the said respondent was continuing to raise construction with impugnity without the Municipality in the least restraining the said respondent in any manner whatsoever.

¶51

Learned counsel for the Nidadavole Municipality, on the other hand, would submit that the construction was not stopped despite deviations inasmuch as the learned single Judge had directed the said Municipality not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, pending^{theconsiderationof} the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶52

3

¶53

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.86 of 2025

¶54

We fail to understand the logic behind the argument^raisedon behalf of the said Municipality. Nothing would stop the said Municipality from considering the explanation in compliance of the directions issued by the learned single Judge and in any case ‘not to take coercive action’ did not mean that the petitioner/respondent No.1 could have been permitted to raise the construction with impugnity.

¶55

According to the statement made by learned counsel for the Municipality, final order had already been passed on 23.01.2025 and consequential action, it is stated, would be taken in accordance with law.

¶56

However, we direct the Nidadavole Municipality to not to permit the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein to raise any further construction in violation of the approved building plan.

¶57

This order be complied with and enforced in letter and spirit. Any failure by the authorities concerned shall be viewed seriously.

¶58

This Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶59

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶60

Sd/- M RAMESH BABU //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban ^ Development Authority, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravati Guntur District.

¶63

The Commissioner, Nidadavole Municipality, Nidadavole East Godavari District.

¶64

The Town Planning officer. Town Planning Section Nidadavole^East Godavari District It is submitted that 1, 2 petitioners^{areresidentsof} Kummara Street and Masijid Street, Nidadolu Town, West^Godavari District.

¶65