Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Venkatrayudu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 December, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.41818 of 2022
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration for the respondent No.1 and Sri N.Ranga Reddy,
learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2, Madanapalle
Municipality.
2. With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ petition
is being disposed of finally at this stage.
3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for the following relief:-
"For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in
making efforts to demolish the building bearing Door No.
4-407-9 (MVR Residency), C.T.M. Road, Madanapalle
Town, Annamayya District without issuing any notice as
illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law,
violation of principles of natural justice and A.P.
Municipalities Act, 1965 and further direct the 2nd
respondent in not interfere with petitioners property and
pass such other order in the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property of
building bearing Door No.4-407-9 (MVR Residency), C.T.M.
Road, Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District, which he
purchased through registered sale deed dated 17.02.2010 from
its previous owner for valid consideration and constructed a
lodge after obtaining permission from the respondent No.2 in
the year 2014. He further submits that the petitioner also got
regularised the building by paying the amount for the
constructions of additional floor. He further submits that on
24.12.2022, the staff of the respondent No.2 came on the spot
and directed the petitioner to remove the structures within 48
hours or else the respondent No.2 will demolish the property.
He submits that any notice was not given to the petitioner and
without following due process of law, the respondent No.2 has
threatened to demolish the same.
5. On 26.12.2022, the matter was posted for today, to
enable the learned Standing counsel to argue. Today, on the
basis of the written instructions received from the respondent
No.2, he submits that the respondent No.2 has not issued any
notice to the petitioner and has also not taken any action for the
demolition. He further submits that the staff of the respondent
No.2 is conducting survey for construction of Storm Water
Drain. He further submits that in case the petitioner's property
is effected or if some action is required to be taken with respect
to the said property, the respondent No.2 shall act only in
accordance with law by following the due procedure.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if that is
the case, then the grievance of the petitioner stands satisfied.
7. In view of the aforesaid, recording the submission of the
learned Standing counsel as aforesaid, the writ petition is being
disposed of finally, that in case the petitioner's property is
required for any public purpose or even, if some action is
required to be taken with respect to the constructions, the
respondent No.2 shall follow the due process of law.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Date: 27.12.2022
SCS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.41818 of 2022
Date: 27.12.2022
Scs
