R D Sridhar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

R D SRIDHAR, S/O LATE R.D. SRIRAMULU, AGED 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, RESIDING NEAR D.NO.15-274, SURVEY NOS.67/16, 67/17, 67/19 67/20 PANAGAL, A.M. PUTTUR, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517 644.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 238.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION CDMA, VADDESWARAM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 502.

¶16

THE SRIKALAHASTI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517 644.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 pleased to declaring the impugned Confirmation Notice dated 25.04.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent, U/Sec. 217 and 228(3) of the Andhra Pradesh

¶19

2

¶20

Municipalities Act, 1965 read with Sections 86 89(3) of the APMR UDA Act, 2016, directing the Petitioner to remove his residential house/godowrwithin seven days, without considering the Petitioners application for regularization under the Andhra Pradesh Building Penalization Scheme and without imposing penal charges as mandated by law and consequently set aside the same while directing the 3RD respondent herein to consider and regularize the said property by collecting the requisite PERCENT regularization charges including the penal charges, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstance

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Confirmation Notice dt. 25-4-2026 issued by the 3^RD respondent herein, pending disposal of this Writ Petition, and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

Order:-

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the confirmation notice dated 25.04.2026 calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized constructions and also notifying the petitioner that, if a fresh application for building permission is submitted, the same shall be considered subject to the applicable rules.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the property vide a registered sale deed in the year 2016 and thereafter constructed the building. It is submitted that the petitioner had already submitted a representation seeking the indulgence of the respondent authorities for granting building permission and also for granting a trade licence to conduct the business.

¶32

This Court, on 30.04.2026, directed the parties to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

¶33

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri G. Laxmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Srikalahasthi Municipality, on receipt of written instructions, submits that the petitioner had constructed a G+2 building near the 4^th Gate of Srikalahasthi Temple by encroaching upon the Godderu Temple drain canal and the 60 feet Master Plan road. It is also stated that a lodge is being run from the said building. It is further stated in the written instructions that a relative of the petitioner had also encroached upon the Temple Master Plan road and the Godderu Temple drain canal. The written

¶34

4

¶35

instructions would also indicate that the petitioner is running an oil mill in unhygienic conditions without food safety measures and etc.

¶36

Considering the written instructions received and also considering the confirmation notice dated 25.04.2026, the confirmation notice does not refer to the commercial activity being conducted in the subject premises. The petitioner may submit an appropriate application seeking the indulgence of the respondents for granting building permission and a trade licence. On receipt of such application, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate speaking orders. It is made clear that, if there is any encroachment by the petitioner on any public road or drain, the same shall be dealt with by the 3^rd respondent appropriately by removing the same after duly notifying the petitioner. Till such process is completed, the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.

¶37