Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A Lakshmi Devi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
APHC010338742025
IN the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH>^
AT AlWARAVATI ^
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
o
o
TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE nyapathy vijay
WRIT PETITIOM
16942 and 16947 np 9nog
WRIT PETITION NO: 16949 rip 2025
Between:
A. Lakshmi Devi, W/o A.Subba Reddy, age 35 years, R/o Door
No. 6-6-165/7,
Badvel mandal, YSR district.
...petitioner
AND
1- The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal
Administration and Urban
Development Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur district.
2. The Badevel
Municipality, rep by its Commissioner, Badvel YSR
district.
3. Sri V. Narasimha Reddy, S/o not known.
Aged about 55 years
Commissioenr, Badvel Municipality Badvel, YSR district.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying that in the
circumstances stated i
pleased to
in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pass orders particularly
the nature of writ of mandamus
one
under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring the orders of the 2 nd
respondent
Roc.No. 69/1123/BDL/UC/2024
Door No. 6-6-165/7 in
i dt. 4.7.2025 seizing fhe residential building in
the Chennampaili village limits of Badvei Municipality
as arbitrary, illegal, violative
Of the principles of natural justice, without power
and violative of Article 14,
19. 21, and 300 A of the of the Constitution of India
and Section 228 of the
A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and consequently set
'' i- ' ■ same and direct
the respondents not to interfere with the peacefully
possession and enjoyment of the above petitioners building and
grant such
other relief as may be deemed just and necessary in the interests of justice
|A NO: 1 OF 9091;
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
may be pleased
to suspend the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.69
/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 4.
7.2025 seizing the petitioner's residential building in
Door No. 6-6-165/7 ii n
the Chennampalli village limits of Badvel Municipality
and direct not to interfere with the enjoyment of the
of the above writ petition. property pending disposal
Counsel for the Petitioner:
SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL
administration and urban development
Counsel for the Respondent
No.2; SRI G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SC FOR
municipalities
Counsel for the Respondent No.3:~
APHC010338712025
I**
WRIT PETITION NO- 2025
Between:
V. Chinna Poli Reddy, S/o Chinna Pol^ Reddy, age 48 years, R/o 2-52-2-1
Godugunuru, Badvel mandal YSR district.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh
, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration and Urban
Development Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur district.
2. The Commissioner, Badevei Municipality , Badvel, YSR district.
3. Sri V. Narasimha Reddy, S/o not known.
Aged about 55 years.
Commissioenr, Badvel Municipality Badvel YSR district.
...RESPONDENTS
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 pass orders
particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus
under Article 226 of the Constitution
respondent Roc. No.
declaring the orders of the 2 nd
68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt. 4.7.2025 seizing the
residential building in Door No. 6-6
Badvel Municipality
-165/6 in the Chennampalli village limits of
as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural
justice, without power and violative of Article 14, 19^ 2I
and 300 A of the of
the Constitution of India and Section 228 of the A P
and Municipalities Act, 1965
consequently set aside the same and
interfere with the peacefully possession
direct the respondents not to
and enjoyment of the above
petitioners building and grant such other relief as
may be deemed just and
necessary in the interests of justice.
jA NO: 1 OF
in the """ <=i--s.ances stated
affidavit filed m support of the petition, the High Coud may be pleased to
suspend the impugned orders of the a"" respondent in Roc.No.
68/1123/BDL/UC/2024 dt.
4.7.2025 seizing the petitioner's residential building
in Door No. 6-6-165/6 in the Chennampaili village limits of
Badvel Municipality
and direct not to interfere with the eni
of the above writ petition. enjoyment of the property pending disposal
Counsel for the Petitioner:
SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL
administration and urban development
Counsel for the Respondent
No.2: SRI G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SC FOR
municipalities
Counsel for the Respondent No.3:-
The Court made the
following COMMON ORDER;
APHC010338742025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 16942/2025
Between:
1 A LAKSHMI DEVI, W/0 A.SUBBA REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS,
R/0 door no. 6-6-165/7, BADVEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS Pf^'^CIPAL
SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN
SECRETARY,
DEVELOPMENT ^^p^R^^^NT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2.THE BADEVEL MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT.
3.SRI V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/0 NOTBADVEL
KNOWN. MUNICIPALITY
AGED ABOl^
55 YEARS, COMMISSIOENR
BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
r
2
WRIT PETITION NO: 16947/90?.*;
Between:
1.V CHINNA POLI REDDY, S/0 CHINNA POLL REDDY, AGE 48
YEARS, R/0 2-52-2-1, GODUGUNURU, BADVEL MANDAL,
YSR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2.THE COMMISSIONER, BADEVEL MUNICIPALITY BADVEL,
YSR DISTRICT.
3.SRI V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/0 NOT KNOWN. AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, COMMISSIOENR BADVEL MUNICIPALITY
BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP
The Court made the following:
THE honourable SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PFT»TinM Nos.16942 of 2025
rnMMON ORDERl
filed questioning the orders in
1. These Writ Petitions are
Roc.No.69/1123/BDL/UC/2024
and Roc.No.68/1123/BDL/UC/2024
inq the residential buildings in
04.07.2025 respectively in seizing
dated
Chennampalli village, within the
D .Nos.6-6-165/7 and 6-6-165/6 in
illegal and arbitrary.
limits of Badvel Municipality, Y.S.R. District, as
The facts leading to filing of the
present Writ Petitions are as
2.
follows;-
the absolute owners
of the above referred
The Petitioners are
A building plan was
issued for construction of
residential buildings
vide
Respondent-Municipality
G+2 residential building by the
the buildings were
B.A.No.10/2010 According to the Petitioners
order under Section 340-A(1) of the Andhra
completed. While so, an
A.P.M.C. Act, 1965") was
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short
building with
authority seizing the
passed by the Respondent
immediate effect. Hence, the present Writ Petitions are filed.
3.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that no prior notices
were issued to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order.
Further, it is contended that the show cause notice dated 28.11.2024,
stop work order dated 03.01.2024 and confirmation order dated
30.01.2025, which are referred in the impugned proceedings were not
issued to the Petitioners at any point of time. The learned counsel for
the Petitioners would further contend that the power under Section
340-A(1) of the A.P.M.C. Act, 1965 is an independent power and not a
necessary consequence of an order passed under Section 228 of the
Act. Therefore, the same would warrant an independent show cause
notice before passing the impugned order. The further contention is
that the power is to be exercised only when the building construction is
ongoing and not when the same is occupied. The counsel for the
Petitioner relied upon a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13136 of
2021 and batch, dated 05.08.2022.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Municipality
on instructions denies the building plan vide B.A.No. 10/2020 said to
have been issued to Petitioners. Apart from that, it is contended that
as
per Rule 3(23)(a) and (b) of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017,
presently Rule 3(24)(a) and (b), even assuming that the building plan
in faro-ur of the Petitioners is held to be genuine, the construction of
3
the buildings should have been completed within the period of three
(3) years. As the construction by the Petitioners is extended beyond
the period of three (3) years, as apparent from the notices issued to
the Petitioners on 28.11.2024, 03.01.2024 and 30.01.2025, the
construction is in violation of the said Rules and therefore the action of
the Respondent authority cannot be faulted with.
5. The learned Standing Counsel denying the allegations of the
political rivalry contended that pursuant to the orders of seizing the
premises, the Petitioners had used force and had broke open the locks
and had violated the impugned order.
6. Having heard the respective counsels, this Court opines as
under;
Section 340-A(1) of The A.P.M.C. Act, 1965 enables the
Commissioner before or after making an order for the removal or
discontinuance of any unauthorized development or construction
under Section 228, to make an order directing the sealing of such
development or property or taking the assistance of the police,
for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act.
4
r
7. There is no dispute to the fact that prior to the issuance of
impugned notice under Section 340-A(1) of the Act, no independent
show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners by the Respondents
proposing action under Section 340-A(1) of the Act.
8. In the opinion of this Court, as the exercise of power under
Section 340-A(1) of the Act is an independent act impacting the
constitutional right of an individual to the property as recognized under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such an exercise would
require a prior notice. It would be appropriate to exercise such extreme
power only after hearing the concerned persons. The action of the
Respondent authority in straight away issuing impugned notice under
Section 340-A(1) of the Act apparently is not in consonance with the
principles of natural justice considering the extreme impact it has on
citizenry.
9. Further as per the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13136 of
2021 and batch dated 05.08.2022, the power to seize a building under
Section 461-A of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is available
only when the building construction is in progress. Such a power was
held to be not available when the construction is completed. The
impugned notice was issued under Section 340-A of the A.P.
Municipalities Act, 1965 which is "pari materia" to Section 461-A of the
5
A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Judgment of this Court
referred above would undoubtedly apply to the exercise of power
under Section 340-A(1) of the Act. Therefore, it has to be stated by the
Respondent authority that the building construction is in progress for
taking action under Section 340-A(1) of the Act. Therefore, it would be
appropriate for the Respondent authority to examine these aspects
and pass appropriate orders.
10. The Writ Petitions are therefore disposed of with the following
directions;
(i) The impugned orders dated 04.02.2025 are set-aside;
(ii) The Respondent authority shall issue an independent show
cause notice to the Petitioners as to why action under Section
340-A(1) of the Act should not be taken, if needed;
(iii) On such notice, the Petitioners shall respond to the same
within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the
notice;
(iv) Further the Petitioners are entitled to raise the issue of
non-service of notices dated 28.11.2024, 03.01.2025 and
30.01.2025, which are referred in the impugned proceedings
and the Respondent authority shall consider the same.
6
(v) No orders as to costs.
11.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- K TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIOr/oFFICER
To.
1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat
Velagapudi, Guntur district.
2. The Commissioner, Badevel Municipality, Badvel, YSR district.
3. One CC to Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, SC for Municipalities[OPUC ]
5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
6. Two CD Copies
ssb
.<4
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/07/2025
COMMON ORDER
WP Nos. 16942 and 16947 OF 2025 Cj .X o 10 JUI. 2025 °m ^ . Current Seciion , ^ disposing of the writ petitions WITHOUT COSTS