Yeruva Meenakshi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3052 AP

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                    WRIT PETITION No.18032 of 2022

ORDER:-

       The petitioner who is said to be owner of 161.97 Square meters of

land   in    Door   No.67-24-06   situated   at   Quarry   center   colony,

Rajamahendravaram,       East     Godavari   District   had   commenced

construction of building after obtaining building permission. While the

building was under construction, the 2nd respondent issued a

provisional order vide notice bearing No.87/1064/RJY/UC/2022, dated

29.04.2022. The petitioner is said to have given a reply to the said

show cause notice stating that the deviations are minor in nature and

do not cause any inconvenience to the public and the same may be

condoned on payment of penalty.

Subsequently, a confirmation order bearing No.87/1064/RJY/

UC/2022, dated 22.06.2022 was passed by the 2nd respondent directing

the petitioner to remove the construction made by the petitioner, failing

which action would be taken against the construction as per the

provisions of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court

by way of the present Writ Petition.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the 2nd respondent without considering the objections filed by the

petitioner and without going into question of whether the deviations are

minor in nature or not had passed the order of demolition. He further

submits that a full bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh

in case of 3 Aces, Hyderabad Vs. Hyderabad Municipal Corproation

of Hyderabad reported in AIR1995AP17, 1994(3)ALT73 had held that

minor deviations can be condoned and the entire construction need not

be demolished for such minor deviations.

The learned counsel, on the basis of above judgment, submits

that the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the confirmation order

is arbitrary and highhanded both on account of the fact that the order

of demolition is unwarranted and that the said order does not contain

any reasons.

Sri M.Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the 2nd respondent submits that the order of confirmation has been

passed after adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner and the

said order is in accordance with law as there were various deviations in

the construction made by the petitioner.

A perusal of the said order would show that the reply given by the

petitioner was rejected with a statement that the said reply was not

satisfactory and was contrary to the provisions of Rules in force. This

method of rejection of the objections of the petitioner would have to be

held in violation of principles of natural justice as no reasons have been

given for such a rejection.

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting

aside the order of confirmation dated 22.06.2022, while leaving it open

to the 2nd respondent to pass an appropriate order, containing reasons,

after considering the objections of the petitioner as well as the judgment

relied upon by the petitioner mentioned above.

Needless to say, no coercive action will be taken against the

petitioner until above exercise is completed. There shall be no orders

as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Date:29.06.2022

Ssp/Mja

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION NO.18032 of 2022

Date: 29.06.2022

Ssp/Mja