Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sakkurthi Srikanth vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 November, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATT" SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY<" :PRESENT: ooo THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA -- |.A No. 1 of 2020 ~ IN W.P. No. 20832 of 2020 o Between :- Sakkurthi Srikanth, S/o Tirupathi Rao, aged about 31 years, Hindu, originally resident of B.K. Palem Village, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District at present R/o 43555 Grimmer BLVD apartment 3-285, Fremont, U.S.A. © Being represented by the G.P.A. holder Sakkurthi Tirupathi Rao, S/o Singaiah, aged about 57 years, Hindu and R/o D.No3-69, B.K.Palem village, . Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner (Petitioner in W.P.No. 20832 of 2020-- . on the file of High Court) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi. 2. Addanki Nagara Panchayat, rep. by its Commissloner, Addanki Town and Mandal Prakasam District, Ongole. ...Respondents __ (Respondents in-do-) Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHAKKILAM VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM-- Counsel for the Respondent No.1: THE G.P. FOR MUNCIPAL ADMNINISTRATION AND- URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the respondent No.2 : SRIM. MANOHAR REDDY-SC -- Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of W.P., the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the notice dated 28-10-2020 issued by the 24 respondent and directing the respondents not to demolish any portion of the building bearing D.No.30-139/1,2 with assessment No.1147008510 covered by S.No.1029/A1G block no.30, Ward No.15 R & B Bungalow Road, Addanki, pending disposal of W.P. No. 20832 of 2020, on the file of the High Court. -- The court, while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following order.(The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case). -~ ORDER :
-
"Matter is moved by way of House Motion in view of urgency.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, who seeks time to get instructions in the matter, while stating that as per his oral instructions, the respondent No.2 is not contemplating to undertake any demolition as on today.
Contd.2....
.
ee 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia contends that the issuance of notice without any details and 3 days time is not tenable in law. He places reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Municipal Shopping Complex, Merchants Welfare Associate v. Commissioner, Visakhapatnam 1996(4) ALD 117. The learned counsel states that infact the premises in question has been regularized by the respondent No.2 by levying penal charges of Rs.40,000/- which has been already paid and under those circumstances, action initiated by the respondent No.2 is contrary to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 218-A of the A.P. Municipalities Act in this regard and contends that once regularization proceedings have been issued the respondent No.2 is estopped from initiating any action.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that infact to the impugned notice which has been affixed to the building in question, a reply was sought to be submitted by hand to the respondent No.2. However, as the same was not received by hand, it .was sent through registered post and served on 03.11.2020. Despite submission of the explanation, the respondent No.2 without passing any order have initiated steps for demolition of the building in question on the ground of un-authorized encroachment.
The learned Standing Counsel states that the notice has been issued, as the construction has been made by encroaching upon a road margin.
Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration takes notice for respondent No.1.
In view of the submissions made, there shall be interim direction not to undertake any steps for demolition of the building in question for a period of one (1) week.
The learned Standing counsel shall inform the orders passed by this Court to the respondent No.2 immediately." -- a Sd/- M, RAMESH BA AIVAESS BU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ). wa ISTRAR for ASSISTANT R To
1.The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2.The Commissioner, Addanki Nagara Panchayat, Addanki Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Ongole. (Addressee Nos. 1 and 2 by RPAD)
3.Two CCs to the G.P. for Municipal Administration, High Court of A.P..~ at Amaravati(OUT)
4.One CC to Sri M. Manohar Reddy, Standing Counsel(OQPUC)
5.One CC to Sri Chakkilam Venkateswarlu, Advocte(OPUC)~
6.One spare copy.
TKK HIGH COURT NJS.J DT.07-11-2020.
ORDER |.A.No. 1 of 2020 IN W.P.No. 20832 of 2020 INTERIM DIRECTION