Disposed¶70

Meda Kumara Gupta v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2025WP/1423/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized construction; building permission; approved plan; Kadapa Municipal Corporation; regularization application pending; preliminary notice dated 10.05.2024; City Planner instructions; Article 226 mandamus; neighbour property dispute; disposal with direction to act within four weeks; no costs; Section 151 CPC interim petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (Kadapa Municipal Corporation) to initiate further action in accordance with law in pursuance of the preliminary notice dated 10.05.2024, preferably within four (04) weeks from receipt of a copy of the Order; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶70

Meda Kumara Gupta Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.2/Kadapa Municipal Corporation in allowing respondent No.4 to make constructions/alterations at house bearing door no. 19/767, Jumma Masjid street, Kadapa without valid permission and approval of plan is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, warranting a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 not to allow further unauthorized construction.

¶32

Court's answer

Respondent No.4's regularization application (fee of Rs.3,000/- already paid) remained pending consideration before respondent No.2.

¶69

Ratio / Principle

Instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the Court disposed of it by directing respondent No.2 to initiate further action in accordance with law in pursuance of the preliminary notice issued on 10.05.2024, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

¶69

Key takeaways

With the above direction the Writ Petition is disposed of; there shall be no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.1423 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice V. Sujatha; decided 21-01-2025): Petitioner, owner of the adjoining 100-year-old house at D.No.19/429, S.F.S. Street, Kadapa, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal the action of the Kadapa Municipal Corporation (respondent No.2) in allowing respondent No.4 to construct/alter his house at D.No.19/767, Jumma Masjid street, Kadapa without valid permission or approved plan. Instructions furnished by the Standing Counsel from the City Planner (dated 21.01.2025) showed that a preliminary notice dated 10.05.2024 had been issued for the unauthorized construction and that respondent No.4's regularization application (fee of Rs.3,000/- paid) was pending, the 27.54 square meter site not meeting the minimum site area requirement. The Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to initiate further action in accordance with law in pursuance of the preliminary notice, preferably within four (04) weeks from receipt of a copy of the Order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1423 OF 2025

¶6

i
^

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr. Meda Kumara Gupta, S/o Meda Veerendra Gupta, aged about 87 years. Occupation RMP Doctor D.No.19/429,S.F.S Street, Kadapa Town and District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi Village, Guntur District.

¶12

The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, reptd by its Commissioner. 3. The Circle Inspector of Police, I Town, P.S. Kadapa

¶13

Meda Narasimhulu, S/o Narasimhulu, aged about 29 years. Business, D.No.19/767, Jumma Masjid street, Kadapa City, Kadapa^District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that iri the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order proceedings or a direction^orawritone in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2/kadapa municipal corporation kadapa in allowing the Respondent no.4 in making constructions, alterations etc. in/for his house bearing door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without valid permission, valid approval of a plan etc., from the Municipal Corporation kadapa authorities/R2,as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 not to allow the Respondent no.4 from making any

¶16

¶17

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶18

'‘’V
<br>

¶19

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1423 OF 2025

¶22

Between:

¶23

JV- Meda Kumara Gupta, S/o Meda Veerendra Gupta, aged^about87 years Occupation RMP Doctor D.No.19/429,S.F.S Street, Kadapa Town and District

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings

¶27

Velagapudi Village, Guntur District.

¶28

The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, reptd by its Commissioner.

¶29

The Circle Inspector of Police, I Town, P.S. Kadapa

¶30

Meda Narasimhulu, S/o Narasimhulu, aged about 29 years. Business, D.No.19/767, Jumma Masjid street, Kadapa City, Kadapa^District.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

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 an order proceedings or a direction or a writ one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2/kadapa municipal corporation kadapa in allowing the Respondent no.4 in making constructions, alterations etc. in/for his house bearing door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without valid permission, valid approval of a plan etc. from the Municipal Corporation kadapa authorities/R2,as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 not to allow the Respondent no.4 from making any

¶33

type of construction/s. alterations etc..for/in his house bearing door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without valid permission and approval of plan from the municipal authorities.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶35

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 4 to not to make any construction/s or alterations etc., for/in his house bearing no.door no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. S. BHATT

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL

¶38

ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL

¶39

CORPORATIONS

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:—

¶42

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶43

¶44

APHC010026712025

¶45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶46

[3333]

¶47

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶48

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶49

PRESENT

¶50

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO: 1423/2025

¶52

Between:

¶53

Meda Kumara Gupta ...PETITIONER

¶54

AND

¶55

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶56

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶57

1.SS BHATT

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶59

1.GP FOR HOME

¶60

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶61

The Court made the following:

¶62

ORDER:

¶63

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article²²⁶ of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶64

“...to issue an order proceedings or a direction or^{awritoneinthenature} of mandamus deciaring the action of the respondent No. 2/ kadapa municipal corportion kadapa in allowing the Respondent^{no.4inmaking,} constructions alterations etc. in/for his house bearing^{doorno.19/767,} jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district without^{validpermission,} valid approval of a plan etc., from the Municipal Corporation^kadapa authorities/R2, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional^{andconsequently} direct the respondent no.2 not to allow the Respondent^{no.4frommaking} any type of construction/s, alterations etc., for/in^{hishousebearingdoor} no. 19/767, jumma masjid street, kadapa town and district^without valid permission and approval of plan from the municipal^{authoritiesandto} pass... ”

¶65

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and resident of D.No.19/429, S.F.S. Street which falls^underthe limits of the Secretariat (Sachivalayam) No.29/2, Kadapa City & District^{havingpurchased} the subject property on 05.12.1968, through a registered^{saledeedwherein} the respondent No.4 and his family are also residing^{inthewesternsideofthe} petitioner’s house and both the houses of the petitioner^{andtherespondent} No.4 were 100 years and 40 years old respectively. 3. While the matter being so, in the first week of July,^{2024,intheabsence} of the petitioner and his family members, the respondent No.4, without intimating the petitioner had started scraping the western side wall for constructing a fresh wall in his site, Upon knowing the same, when the petitioner and his family members questioned the respondent No.4, he promised the petitioner that he would re-construct^{thescrappedwesternside} wall of the petitioner, but had failed to comply with^{hispromise.Thereafter,on} verification, the petitioner got to know that the respondent No.4 without obtaining the necessary permission from the Municipal^{authoritiesiscarrying}

¶66

out the said construction. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, if at all the western side wall of the petitioner’s house is fully scraped, then the bathrooms and the sewage pipes of the petitioner’s house would be affected, as the said building is an 100 years old one and further, when the petitioner asked the respondent No.4 to show the building permission,^the respondent No.4 refused to show the same. Alleging the same, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent No.2, but as no action has been initiated by the respondent No.2, the present writ petition.

¶67

Heard Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent No.3 and perused the material available on record.

¶68

Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has furnished a copy of instructions dated 21.01.2025, issued by the City Planner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, wherein it is stated that the office of the City Planner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation has identified the unauthorized construction made by the 4‘'^ respondent and a preliminary notice dated 10.05.2024 was issued seeking explanation, to which the 4*^ respondent has submitted an explanation stating that he has paid the fee of Rs.3,000/-, for regularizing the said construction but, however, as the site area in question is too small to an extent of 27.54 square meters and it does not meet the minimum site area requirement, not granted any building plan approval for the 4^'^ respondent. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition as it is devoid of merits. 6. It is clear from the said instructions that respondent^No.4 has made certain unauthorized constructions, in pursuance of which, preliminary notice was issued and respondent No.4 has paid fee of Rs.3,000/seeking

¶69

regularization of construction, which in fact is pending for consideration before respondent No.2. 7. In view of the above, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.2 to initiate further action in accordance with law in pursuance of the preliminary notice issued on 10.05.2024 as early as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶70

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶71

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶72

//TRUE COPY//

¶73

SECTION OFFICER

¶74

To, 1. The of Andhra Andhra District'.

¶75