Disposed¶82

Mukku Sathyavanthudu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Aug 2025WP/11192/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Demolition notice S.456 AP Municipal Corporation Act 1955; structural stability certificate on technical parameters; IIT Tirupati civil engineering inspection report unsafe building; sealing of building; 15-day window to remove movables; demolition by Municipal Corporation; writ of mandamus Article 226; Articles 14 21 300A; Tirupati Prakasam Road building D.No.1-2-118/J; lessee advocate office; Boyareddy Praveen Kumar Reddy owner; WP 11192 of 2025 disposed no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondents 2 & 3 to seal the building immediately; occupants (including petitioner) permitted 15 days to remove movables/articles with assured access; thereafter respondent No.2 to proceed with demolition; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶82

Mukku Sathyavanthudu Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in issuing the notice dated 10/04/2025 and attempting to demolish the portion of building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati — alleged by the petitioner to be in good condition — is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. +1 more

¶53

Ratio / Principle

On the basis of the technical expert report(s), this Court recorded that the building is unsafe for human habitation and dwelling and is not fit for running any office or for any commercial purposes.

¶80

Key takeaways

Considering the report, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct respondents 2 and 3 to immediately take steps to seal the building.ratio¶81
Liberty was given to the petitioner and other occupants of the building to remove their articles and other movables within 15 days, with access to be afforded to them whenever they intend to remove their movables.ratio¶81
After the 15-day removal period, respondent No.2 (Tirupati Municipal Corporation) shall take steps for demolition of the building; with these directions the writ petition was disposed of, no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice Harinath.N), 21.08.2025 — WP No. 11192 of 2025 (Mukku Sathyavanthudu v. State of A.P. and others): writ of mandamus sought against Tirupati Municipal Corporation's notice dated 10.04.2025 under S.456, Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling for demolition/remedial works to building D.No.1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, on grounds of alleged good condition and Articles 14, 21 and 300A violations. Acting on an IIT Tirupati (Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering) report dated 08.07.2025 filed vide U.S.R.No.79403 of 2025, which found the structure distressed, stability not satisfactory, and unsafe for habitation/office/commercial use, the Court directed respondents 2 & 3 to seal the building immediately, allowed the petitioner and other occupants 15 days (with access) to remove their movables, and directed respondent No.2 to thereafter demolish the building; petition disposed of, no costs.

¶1

APHC010225352025

¶2

(■>

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 11192 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mukku Sathyavanthudu, S/o. Late M. Subbarayulu Chetty, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. D.No. 1-2-118J, Ground Floor, Prakasam Road, Adjacent to GRT Jewelers, Court Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District, A.P.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat, Velagpudi, Amaravathi, A.P

¶13

The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor District

¶14

The Town Planning Officer, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor Distrit

¶15

The Executive Engineer, R and B Department, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶16

Boyareddy Praveen Kumar Reddy, S/o. Vasudeva Reddy, Aged about 48 years, R/o. D.No. 1-7/B, Mittapalyam, Chanadragiri, Tirupati, Chittor District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent^Nos.2to4and their employees in issuing notice dated 10/04/2025 and trying to demolish the portion of the building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, Chittor District though the building is in good condition as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of settled Principles of Law, and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and setaside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the subject flat of the Petitioner in which he's having^lease

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶21

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 Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to demolish the building of the Petitioner building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District,

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN

¶23

DEV

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3: SRI POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI CH B R P SEKHAR The Court made the following order:

I; -01

APHC010225352025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶30

AT AMARAVATI

¶31

[3457]

¶32

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶33

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 11192/2025

¶37

Between:

¶38

1.MUKKU SATHYAVANTHUDU, S/0. LATE M. SUBBARAYULU CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/0. D.NO. 1-2-118J, GROUND FLOOR, PRAKASAM ROAD, ADJACENT TO GRT JEWELERS, COURT ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P

¶42

A, A

¶43

A, A

¶44

4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, S

¶45

5.THE TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶46

6.THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶47

7.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DEPARTMENT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶48

8.BOYAREDDY PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY, S/0. VASUDEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 1-7/B, MITTAPALYAM,

¶49

Page 2 of 6

¶50

¶51

CHANADRAGIRI, TIRUPATI, CHITTOR DISTRICT.

¶52

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶53

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^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and their employees in issuing notice dated 10/04/2025 and trying to demolish the portion of the building bearing D.No. 1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District though the building is in good condition as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of settled Principles of Law, and violation of Articles 14. 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and setaside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the subject fiat of the Petitioner in which he's having lease and pass

¶54

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶55

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 grant leave to file the main Writ Petition challenging the Notice dated 10/04/2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent to the 5th Respondent herein and pass

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

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 permit the proposed petitioner NO 2 to come on record as petitioner in the above writ petition NO 11192 OF 2025 and pass

¶60

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶61

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶62

Page 3 of 6

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶64

1.POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In

¶65

2,GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶66

3.CH B R P SEKHAR

¶67

4.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶68

X''

¶69

Page 4 of 6

¶70

The Court made the following:

¶71

:: ORDER ::

¶72

The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by w proceedings dated 10.04.2025, whereby the respondent^No.2issued notice under Section 456 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and notified the structural stability of the building bearing D.No.1-2-118/J, Prakasam Road, Tirupati,^{andfurthercalled} upon the occupants of the building including the owner, to pull down/remove the potential irreparable portions and secure the stability^{ofthestructuralto} prevent the damage to the property and also the risk of lives of the occupants.

¶73

Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶74

The petitioner is a practicing Advocate, has taken a portion of the said building, on lease and running his office. The remaining portion of the building is also under occupation of Advocates, who are running^{theiroffices.} This Court, on 09.05.2025, directed the petitioner to obtain Structural Stability Certificate from the NT, Tirupati or SVU Engineering Department. This Court also niade it clear that the Structural Stability Certificate should not be merely on the opinion, but should be on the technical parameters.

¶75

A report dated 08.07.2025, submitted by the Department^ofCiviland Environmental Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati, was filed vide U.S.R.No.79403 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025. This Court has perused the report submitted and the summary of the report reads^asfollows:

¶76

“Based on the visual inspection of the overall building,^thecracksare conspicuously visible and are not just superficial, highlighting the loss in the intactness of the structural members, which denote that the building is in quite distressed state of condition. The undersigned are of opinion that the structural soundness and stability of the said building “DOESNOT APPEAR SATISFACTORY”, and hence, it appears^tobe

¶77

Page 5 of 6

¶78

¶79

unsafe for human habitation for dwelling, or any other office or commercial purposes related hitherto.”

¶80

The Technical Expert has also submitted a report, which would clearly indicate that the building is unsafe for human habitation and for dwelling and also not fit for running any office for any commercial purposes.

¶81

Considering the report, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 2 & 3, immediately, to take steps to seal the building. The liberty is given to the petitioner and other occupants of the building for removal of their articles and other movables, within 15 days. The portion of the petitioner and other occupants shall be given access to them, as and when they intend to remove their movables and other articles. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 shall take steps for demolition of the building.

¶82