Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Parvathi Educational Society, vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.2913 of 2012
Sri Parvathi Educational Society (Society
No.425/2002) H.No.9-7-116, VKM Street,
Pudupet, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District,
Rep. by its President, Smt.M.T.Bhagyam.
... Petitioner
Versus
The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
District Collector, Chittoor District,
Chittoor-517001 and three others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Koutilya
Counsel for respondents 1 & 3 : GP for Revenue
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri N.Ranga Reddy
ORDER
Assailing the Notice vide UCR No.1 of 2012 dated
01.02.2012 issued under Section 228 (1) of the Andhra
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short "the Act") to the
petitioner by the Commissioner, Nagari Municipality, the
above writ petition is filed.
SRS J
2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 07.07.2012 and
interim stay was granted. Separate counter affidavits were
filed on behalf of respondents 1 & 3 as well as 2nd
respondent.
3. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for petitioner and
Sri P.Sai Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ranga
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention
of this Court to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.33 of
2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nagari as well as
judgment in A.S.No.7 of 2008 and Cross Objections in
A.S.No.7 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur and
would submit that the matter is seized of by the civil Court
and only to create troubles, the notice impugned was issued
by the 2nd respondent. He would also submit that petitioner
is the absolute owner of the property.
5. Per contra, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent
would submit that the civil Court granted the relief of
injunction and negatived the relief of declaration. He would
SRS J
also submit that since the construction was made without
sanctioned plan, notice was issued and the petitioner and the
petitioner without submitting explanation approached this
Court.
6. Thus, challenge in this writ petition, as stated supra, is
the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 228 (1)
of the Act. As seen from the notice, it was pointed out that
A.C. Sheet Roof was constructed without obtaining
permission. Nothing was stated in the notice about the title.
As per the provisions of the Act, if any person intends to
make construction, he has to seek permission from the
authority. Notice, as stated supra, is only indicating that AC
Sheet roof was constructed without obtaining permission.
7. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ
Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit
explanation to the notice by annexing all relevant documents
within a period of three weeks from today. Upon receipt of
such explanation, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same
objectively, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing,
shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to
SRS J
the petitioner. Till such time, the respondents shall not take
any coercive steps against the petitioner. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand dismissed.
________________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
5th December, 2023
PVD
