Yuvajana Shramika Rythu Congress Party ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2024

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yuvajana Shramika Rythu Congress Party ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2024

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in proposing/proceeding to demolish the building of the petitioners in the land to an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in Survey No.136-1B1B2A2, HLC Colony, Anantapur under the guise of the Provisional Order vide Notice No.01/1001/ATP/UC/TP/2024 dated 22.06.2024 and Provisional Order vide U.C. Notice No.02/2024/AHUDA dated 22.06.2024 even without passing the confirmation order as stipulated under the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region & Urban Development Authority Act, 2016.

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is a regional political party in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It had achieved a remarkable victory in the 2019 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections by winning 151 seats out of 175 and it was in power for five years. While so as per the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.340 Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 21.07.2016 in respect of allotment of government land for locating the offices of the national political parties/recognised political parties, the petitioner's political party was allotted the subject land vide 77 G.O.Ms.No.371 dated 18.05.2022. The possession handed over certificate was also issued by the Tahsildar, Anantapuram in Rc.No.8/1267/2022/B, dated NIL.12.2022. As per the policy of the State the lease is for a period of 33 years and as per the conditions of the said policy the allottee shall commence and complete the construction of the building on the land within one year from the date of issue of the allotment orders. Pursuant to the handing over of the possession of the subject land, the petitioners also paid property tax for the open land. Then the petitioners submitted building application form to the respondent No.5 vide B.A.No.1107/0084/B/ATP/ ATPRRL/2023 dated 12.10.2023 and in pursuance of the same, the respondent authorities inspected the said land and on comparison of the site measurements and the proposed plan, they have affirmatively stated that the building plan is approved and that the construction work can be commenced. In spite of repeated requests the copy of approval was not made available to the petitioners. Subsequently after lapse of three months the petitioners had commenced the construction and even during the construction time there were periodical inspections by the respondent authorities concerned. The respondent authorities further stated to the petitioners that the building approval is deemed to have been approved as per Section 84(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region & Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (for short, "APMRUDA Act") as the stipulated period of 60 days has elapsed. The said construction of the 78 subject building took place by carrying out the same strictly as per law and in strict compliance with the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017.

While so, suddenly after the defeat of the petitioner's political party in the General Elections, 2024, and upon the change of circumstances, to the utter surprise and shock of the petitioners the respondent No.4 of the respondent No.3-Corporation issued provisional order under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of APMC Act, 1955 and under Sections 89(1 & 2) r/w Sections 82 and 90 (1) of APMRUDA Act, 2016 in Notice No.01/1001/ATP/UC/TP/2024 dated 22.06.2024 calling upon the petitioners to show sufficient cause as to why the unauthorised construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Similarly, the respondent No.6 representing the office of the respondent No.5 also issued similar provisional order notice under Sections 84(5), 88, 89(1), (2), 90 and 91 of APMRUDA Act, 2016 in U.C.Notice No.02/2024/AHUDA dated 22.06.2024 calling upon the petitioners to show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation of the construction should not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Immediately, the petitioners submitted the explanation to the respondent authorities vide letters dated 25.06.2024 in pursuance of the above said impugned provisional orders dated 22.06.2024. Consequently, the petitioners also stopped the further construction of the building in the 79 said land with effect from the date of receipt of the said impugned notice and even till date they have not commenced the work. But the respondent authorities in similar circumstances have high handedly and in an arbitrary manner demolished a similar building in Tadepalli in the early hours on 22.06.2024 and the opposite party cadre is threatening that all the party offices will be demolished in a similar fashion. While so, few people claiming to be acting under the instructions of the respondent authorities had entered into the said lands in the early hours of 22.06.2024 and threatened that they would be demolishing the building and also warned not to interfere with the demolition activity as it may cause a threat to the life. In view of the said reasonable apprehension of threat of demolition, this writ petition is filed assailing the above said impugned provisional orders dated 22.06.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 428 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (for short, "the Act") the above said building application was made duly complying with all the requirements and the respondent Commissioner concerned has not disapproved the construction of the said building by communicating the same in writing within thirty days of the receipt of the above said building application and plans as per Section 437 of the said Act. Hence it is deemed to have been approved by him. The Commissioner also has got the 80 power to regularise the construction made without obtaining sanction plan subject to fulfilling the following conditions as per Section 455A of the said Act.

"455-A. Regulation of Buildings constructed without sanctioned plan: -

The commissioner may regularize constructions made without obtaining sanctioned plan, subject to fulfilling the following conditions:

(a) Submission of building plans to the competent authority duly paying all categories of fee and charges;

(b) The construction shall be subject to the condition that all parameters laid down in relevant statutes, Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan, Building Bye-Laws, Building Rules and other relevant Government orders including Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Act5, 1999 and the National Building Code are satisfied;

(c) Payment of penalty equivalent to thirty three percent (33%) of the various categories of fees and charges payable by the applicant for obtaining building permission in addition to the regular fee and other charges payable."

4. The Municipal Commissioner has also got power under Section 455AA of the said Act even to regularise and penalise the construction of the buildings made by the owner unauthorisedly or any deviation of the sanction plan as a onetime measure as detailed in the said section.

5. Similarly, as per Section 84 of the APMRUDA Act, the petitioners made application for permission to construct the subject building as stated above and no refusal to grant of permission in writing was received by the petitioners from the respondent authorities concerned 81 within sixty days from the date of receipt of the said application of the petitioners. In view of the deeming provision of Section 84(4) of the said Act, the permission is deemed to have been granted for the construction of the said building by the respondent authority concerned. But surprisingly under Section 89 of the said Act the respondent authorities concerned issued the above said impugned provisional order and without following the further procedure as contemplated in the said section and other provisions of those two acts, the respondent authorities are bent upon hastenly to demolish the subject building even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners as stated above. The confirmation order is also not yet passed by the said respondent authority under Section 89(3) of the said Act. Even after that the petitioners have got the right of remedy of appeal under Section 89(2) of the said Act. Section 90A of the said Act deals with Resolution and regulation and penalisation of the buildings constructed without sanction plans. Without availing and exhausting all the remedies, the respondent authorities are threatening to demolish the subject building contrary to the provisions of law.

6. He further refers to the observation made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25816 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 at paragraph 15, which reads as follows:

"15.Whether the deviation in the present case, as per the provisional order are minor, minimal or trivial, or affect public at large 82 or in public interest or not, or cause public nuisance or hazardous or dangerous to public safety including of the residents therein require consideration by the competent authority of the Corporation before resorting to the demolition. In the Full Bench judgment Section 452 of the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act itself was for consideration."

7. He also refers to the Full Bench decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P.No.10019 of 1993 dated 02.09.1994 in the matter of 3 ACES HYDERABAD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD1, wherein it was held as under:

"27. Point No. 4: This point relates to the power to demolition under S. 452 of "The Act". The contention of the petitioner is that the demolition contemplated under Sec. 452 of "The Act" is not a mandatory one. The power of demolition should not be resorted to unless overwhelming public interest is involved. We have already referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Prathiba

28. ...

29. Now, the other point which remains to be dealt with is whether the case of Shamsuddin Hasan Khudankmen (1978 (2) Andh WR 91) (supra) which construed the word "may" occurring in Section 452 of "The Act" is rightly decided or not. The learned Judges in the said Judgment held that the word "may" occurring in Section 452 of "The Act" is not mandatory, in the sense that the Commissioner is not bound to direct demolition of the building under the said section in every case of violation. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned Judges relied upon and followed the two-Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Calcutta Corporation v. Mulchand, AIR 1956 SC 110.

1 AIR 1995 AP 17 83 30 to 35. ...

36. Having regard to the rampant, illegal and unauthorised constructions raised in the country as observed in State of Maharashtra's case (AIR 1991 SC 1453) (supra) before parting with this case, we would like to formulate the following guidelines to be followed by the respondent in respect of illegal constructions. The guidelines should not be treated as exhaustive but only illustrative and the discretion to be exercised by the Corporation in any given case should not be arbitrary or capricious.

1) In cases where applications having been duly filed in accordance with law, after fulfilling all requirements, seeking permission to construct buildings and permission was, also granted by the Corporation, the power of demolition should be exercised by the Corporation only if the deviations made during the construction are not in public interest or cause public nuisance or hazardous or dangerous to public safety including the residents therein. If the deviations of violations are minor, minimal or trivial which do not affect public at large, the Corporation will not resort to demolition."

8. Relying upon the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the power of demolition should not be resorted to unless overwhelming public interest is involved. In view of the above said guidelines as mentioned in para 36(1) of the above said judgment, if the deviations of violations are minor, minimal or trivial which do not affect public at large, the Corporation will not resort to demolition. Finally he submits that since the above said construction of the subject building has been carried out till now as per the submitted plans and as per the 84 provisions of the above said two Acts and Rules made thereunder, the question of demolition of any portion of the said buildings will not arise in this case.

W.P.No.13240 of 2024:

9. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in trying to pull down the construction raised by the petitioner in the land in an extent of Ac.0-24 cents out of Ac.2-00 cents in Survey No.424/3 of Kadapa Village and Mandal, YSR District, (Plot No.38/240- 65, Ramanajaneyapuram Street, Ramanjaneyapuram) in pursuance of the Notice No.376/1013/KDP/2024 dated 22.06.2024 without considering the explanation dated 29.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner.

10. The counsel for the petitioner submits that vide G.O.MS.No.758 dated 20.12.2022 the Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted the subject land in an extent of Ac.2-00 in Survey No.424/3 in Kadapa Village and Mandal, YSR District in favour of YSR Congress party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340 Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions. The possession of the subject land was delivered by the Tahsildar, Kadapa vide certificate for handing over of possession of land dated 31.01.2023. 85 The petitioner paid the property tax for the open land. While so, the construction of the subject building has been undertaken and almost it is completed as per the plans and in compliance of the provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the AP MRUDA Act, 2016 and the Rules made thereunder. While so, to the utter surprise and shock and dismay of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned provisional order dated 22.06.2024 for which the petitioner submitted its explanation dated 25.06.2024. He further submits that pursuant to the allotment of the land the party incharge tried to submit the building application through the licensed technical personnel via the APDMS portal whereas the said application was not received stating that the subject land has not been converted into non agriculture from agriculture even though no such conversion is required. Petitioner apprehends the threat of demolition of the subject building at any time unless the protection is given in the interest of justice.

W.P.No.13212 of 2024:

11. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in attempting to demolish or seize the building in an extent of 294.66 square yards consisting of ground+3 floors RCC Building, situated in D.No.21-114, Plot No.7, survey Nos.83/2, 85/1, 86, 87/A1, 87/A2, 87/A3 & 89 of Vengalapuram Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. 86

12. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner leased out the subject building to the YSR Congress party to use it as its office. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued the impugned provisional order dated 25.06.2024 alleging unatuhorised construction in the premises of D.No./Plot No.21-114 situated at SKD Colony Street, SKD Colony, 1st road area as detailed in the said order for which the petitioner submitted explanation on 27.06.2024. He also further submits that the Commissioner, Adoni Municipality has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The petitioner apprehends threat of demolition by the respondent authorities concerned without giving any due opportunity. W.P.No.13244 of 2024: -

13. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the confirmation order vide U.C.No.06/1155/PTP/UC/2023 dated 24.06.2024 alleging unauthorized construction in Survey No.666/6A1, 666/7A1 of Puttaparthi Revenue Village situated Near Airport.

14. In this case also the Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted the subject land in an extent of Ac.2-00 i.e., Ac.1-30 cents in Survey No.666/6A1, 666/7A1 of Puttaparthi Revenue village and Mandal in Satya Sai District in favour of the petitioner's party for construction of party 87 office buildings on lease basis on payment of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions. The possession was handed over by the Tahsildar, Puttaparthi vide proceedings dated 05.12.2022.

The petitioners paid the property tax for the open land and the petitioners submitted building application form to the Puttaparthi Urban Development Authority vide B.A.No.1169/0014/PTP/PTP/2023 dated 06.09.2023. Accordingly as per the plans submitted and in consonance with the provisions of the law, the petitioner constructed the subject building without there being any deviations and it is at the stage of completion. While so, hurriedly, the respondent nos.2 and 3 issued the above said confirmation orders dated 22.06.2024 without applying its mind posing threat of demolition at any time.

W.P.No.13248 of 2024: -

15. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation dated 22.06.2024 on the ground of alleged unauthorized construction as detailed in the table of the said proceedings.

16. In this case also the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.355, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 allotted 88 the subject land in an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in T.S.No.155-2-7B at Ramanayyapeta village, Kakinada Urban Mandal, Kakinada District in favour of YSR Congress Party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per anum per acre in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the possession was delivered by the Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban vide proceedings dated

26.05.2022. The petitioner paid property tax on the open land also. The petitioner submitted Building Application form to the respondent Corporation vide B.A.No. 1060/0350/B/KKD/RM1/2023 dated 25.07.2023. Accordingly, the construction of the petitioners'party office building has been carried out strictly in compliance with the provisions of law under the APMRUDA Act, 2016, the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the A.P.Building Rules, 2017. While so, to the utter surprise and shock of the petitioners, the above said impugned provisional order dated 22.06.2024 was issued by the respondent No.2 herein for which the petitioner submitted explanation dated 25.06.2024. Without considering the same, the respondent No.2 may cause for demolition of the subject building at any point of time.

W.P.No.13250 of 2024: -

17. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the show cause notice No.E-382346/2024/ACP-II dated 89 21.06.2024 and also stop work order letter No.SWO/1167/2023/0102 dated 21.06.2024 issued by the respondent No.4.

18. In this case also the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject land was allotted in an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in Survey No.174/4, Yendada Village, Ward No.8, Zone-II, GVMC Limits, in favour of the petitioners' party for construction of party office building for a period of 33 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam also issued delivery receipt with regard to the possession of the subject land vide proceedings dated 14.06.2022. The petitioners paid property tax on the open land. Subsequently, the petitioners were issued building permit order on the application made by the petitioners dated 03.02.2023 vide Permit No.1167/0010/B/VSKP/YND and MWD/2023 dated 20.06.2024. The construction of the party office building has been carried out strictly in compliance with the provisos of law including the APMRUDA Act, 2016, the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the A.P.Building Rules, 2017. While so, to the utter surprise shock and dismay of the petitioners the respondent authorities issued the above said impugned notice through the Town Planning Officer, Zone-II of the respondent No.2 and the stop work order of the respondent No.4 was issued by the Chief Urban Planner of the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan 90 Region Development Authority, dated 21.06.2024 for which the petitioner submitted the explanation dated 25.06.2024 to both the authorities.

Without considering the same, the authorities may proceed with the demolition of the subject building without giving any opportunity to the petitioners.

W.P.No.13251 of 2024: -

19. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order of the respondent No.3 vide U.C.No.02/SEC09/2024/CIRCULE 03 dated 22.06.2024 and proposing to demolish the partially erected building structure situated at Survey No.107/7 situated at Suviseshapuram Area, Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation Limits.

20. In this case also the petitioners refers to the proceedings of the respondent No.2, dated 20.02.2023, G.O.Ms.No.357, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022, G.O.Ms.No.53, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 16.02.2023, Land handing over certificate of the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry, dated 07.06.2024 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, dated 25.06.2024 to the respondent No.3.

21. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners paid the property tax on the land. He further submits that in spite of the orders of this court in W.P.No.12814 of 2024 dated 21.06.2024 the respondent 91 authorities therein demolished on the same day the subject building therein in utter violation of the said orders of this court. Hence apprehends threat of demolition of the subject land of this writ petition also at any time without considering the explanation of the petitioners herein.

W.P.No.13253 of 2024: -

22. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent NO.3 in issuing the Provisional Order vide U.C.No.01/SEC40/2024/ZONE 01 dated 24.06.2024. In this case also the petitioners refers to the possession handing over certificate dated 31.12.2022, the G.O.Ms.No.349, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the land property tax receipts with assessment No.1085044080 paid from 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2025 and the explanation of the petitioners to the respondent No.3 dated 25.06.2024. Pursuant to the allotment of the land, the party incharge duly submitted Building Application No.1085/0175/SRI/PDU/2023 dated 02.06.2024. The Building designs were approved but the town planning fee was yet to be generated.

The authorities have visited the site and satisfied with the compliance of the plan with site. The construction work was started much after the expiry of the time specified under Section 437 of the Act and Section 84(4) of the APMRUDA Act, 2016. However, upon receipt of the subject notice, construction work was put on hold.

23. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Section 451 of the Act has no application for the facts and circumstances of this case. W.P.No.13254 of 2024: -

24. This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned demolition notice issued by the respondent no.3 for the respondent No.2 vide notice E-Office No.382347/ACP/Zone-VII/AKP dated 21.06.2024 on the ground that the petitioner has constructed the building without obtaining permission from the GVMC Authorities and thereby directed to show cause in writing by further directing to stop the work and to submit the reply within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, for which the petitioner submitted its explanation dated 25.06.2024.

25. The petitioner also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016, G.O.Ms.No.759, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 20.12.2022. The proceedings of the Tahsildar, Anakapalli District dated 29.12.2022, the handing over certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 29.12.2022 and the GVMC Anakapalli, Zone VII Receipt Nos.06/2024-25/7108, 07/2023-24/11471, 03/2022-23/25582. i.e., Property tax paid receipts. He further submits that the impugned notice does not fit into the scheme of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 93 W.P.No.13272 of 2024: -

26. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.2 Corporation vide Notice No.02.2024/WPRS-30 dated 24.06.2024 and the short fall notice issued by the respondent No.3 vide endorsement letter No.EDS/1016.2023/1779 dated 20.06.2024 for which the petitioner submitted explanation dated 26.06.2024.

27. He also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I), dated 21.07.2016, G.O.Ms.No.373, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022, G.O.Ms.No.55, Revenue (Lands.I) dated 06.02.2023, proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate dated 29.04.2023, handing over possession of the land by the Tahsildar, Kurnool dated 01.05.2023 and the Mortgage Deed dated 15.09.2023 vide document No.12581 of 2023. He further submits that the respondent authorities have not applied their mind, impugned proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice and the respondent No.3's letter dated 22.06.2024 is not supplied to the petitioner.

W.P.No.13249 of 2024: -

28. This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the respondent No.2 vide U.C.No.01/2024/NMC/WPRS-165 dated 22.06.2024 alleging that the petitioner has been constructing ground + one floor 94 unauthorisedly at Venkateswarapuram area in Survey No.2222-2 of Nellore Bit-II without obtaining prior building permission from the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for which the petitioner submitted explanation dated 25.06.2024 to the respondent No.2. He also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.366, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022, possession handed over certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 08.12.2022 and the Nellore Municipal Corporation Receipts showing the payment of property tax through online. He further submits that the building applications made vide B.A.No.1031/0263/B/NMC/VSTA/2023 dated 13.02.2023. Accordingly, the construction of the subject building was taken up in compliance with the provisions of the Act without deviating the submitted plans.

W.P.No.13382 of 2024: -

29. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation directing the petitioner to stop the unauthorised construction work and submit a reply to the notice within seven days from the date of receipt of the same.

30. The impugned provisional order says that the petitioner aplied for the building permission in the T.S.No.569P of Maharajupeta North ward, Jammu Narayanapuram, Vizianagaram, which is pending in the Licensed 95 Technical Personnel (LTP) login nearly 347 days and not resubmitted the Building Application file duly rectifying shortfalls raised by the competent authority i.e., VMRDA, Visakhapatnam. It is also observed that the petitioner has proceeded with the construction work without obtaining permission from the VMRDA.

31. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned provisional order of the respondent No.2 dated 24.06.2024 is liable to be set aside as the short falls pointed out by the respondent No.2 in the said proceedings are not applicable and even then when the explanation was submitted to the said provisional order dated 24.06.2024, the same was not accepted by the respondent No.2 through online procedure. However, he refers to the G.O.Ms.No.350, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 issuing allotment of land to an extent of Ac.1-00 in T.S.No.559 at Maharajupeta Southward, Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation, Vizianagaram District in favour of the petitioners party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis @ the rate of Rs.1,000/- per acre per anum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions. Consequently, the possession of the subject land was handed over by the Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 23.06.2024.

The petitioner also paid property tax on the open land. The VMRDA issued endorsement dated 12.07.2023 showing certain shortfall of non submission 96 of three documents which have no application and not required for the purpose of undertaking construction of the said building over the subject land. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of this court in W.P.No.17688 and 26474 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022 wherein it was observed at paragraphs 33 and 34 as under:

"33. The learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in its order dated 06.06.2012 in W.P.No.23934 of 2009 had held that the petitioner, in that case, shall be entitled to file an application under Section 455-A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act for regularisation of construction. In the present case, a similar provision is available to the petitioner under Section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, which empowers the Metropolitan Commissioner or Vice Chairman to regularise constructions made without building permissions, subject to the conditions contained in the said provision.

34. Consequently, W.P. No. 26474 of 2021 is dismissed and W.P.No.17688 of 2021 is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the remedy available under Section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 within a period of two weeks from today. Any application filed by the petitioner, in this regard, would be considered and disposed of by the said authority, in accordance with law and the Gram Panchayath shall 97 not take any action against the petitioner till such an application is disposed of. The Respondents shall then act in accordance with the decision taken in the application filed under section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016."

W.P.No.13389 of 2024: -

32. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.2 dated 25.06.2024 directing the petitioner to stop further work and remove the unauthoirsed development within seven days failing which further action will be taken including removal of the unauthoirsed construction and further action will be issued under the provisions of the AP MR & UDA Act, 2016.

33. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are seeking regularization of the constructed building under the APMR & UDA Act, 2016 for which the respondent No.2 has got power to exercise its discretion favourably. He also refers to the GO Ms.No.369, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 saying that there was an allotment of land to an extent of Ac.1-61 cents in Survey No.1022-2 at Masapeta village, Rayachoti Mandal, Annamayya District in favour of the petitioner's party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.NO.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 98 subject to certain conditions. He further refers to the proceedings of the District Collector dated 06.06.2022 and the representation of the petitioners dated 26.06.2024 submitted in pursuance of the impugned provisional order of the respondent No.2 dated 25.06.2024. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty issued the advance possession certificate of the subject land dated 22.11.202 and the Joint Sub-Registrar of Rayachoti also issued Market Value Certificate for the subject land dated 03.08.2023. It is alleged in the impugned provisional order of the respondent No.2 dated 25.06.2024 that the petitioner proceeded with the unauthorized construction without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority as per Sections 88(1) & 89(1 & 2) & 90(1) of AP MR & UDA Act, 2016.

W.P.No.13393 of 2024: -

34. This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the respondent No.2 dated 24.06.2024 alleging unauthorized construction of the subject building in Survey Nos.23-2, 27-1 and 27-3 in Labour Colony, Vidyadharapuram Village, Vijayawada of NTR District in an extent of Ac.1-10 cents on lease basis for a period of 33 years in favour of the president, YSR Congress party for construction of the party office for which the petitioners submitted their representation dated 25.06.2024. the counsel for the petitioners refers to the G.O.Ms.No.761, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 20.12.2022 showing allotment of land to an extent of 99 1850 sq.yds in R.S.No.28/3 of Vidyadharapuram Village, Vijayawada West Mandal, NTR District in favour of YSR Congress Party for construction of party office buildings on lease for a period of 33 years on payment of RS.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340 Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions. He further refers to the property tax receipt paid on the open land dated 20.06.2024, 23.08.2023, and 14.06.2024, the proceedings of the Commissioner, dated 15.09.2023, and the land handing over certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Mandal Surveyor of Vijayawada West Mandal.

W.P.No.13396 of 2024: -

35. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.3 dated 26.06.2024 alleging unauthorized construction in an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in R.S.No.371-A1, S.W.No.IV of Machilipatnam Town for which the petitioner submitted explanation on 27.06.2024.

36. The counsel for the petitioners refers to the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam dated 15.06.2022, the G.O.Ms.NO.360, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 showing allotment of land in an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in 100 R.S.No.371-A1, S.W.No.IV, Machilipatnam Town and Mandal, Krishna District on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions, the possession handed over certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam, dated 27.06.2022, the property tax receipts on land dated 20.06.2024, 06.02.2024 and 21.09.2024, the building application form vide B.A.No.1070/0329/B/MCP/EDPL/2023 dated 25.07.2023 and the building permit order issued by the Machilipatnam Urban Development Authority respondent No.4 herein vide permit No.1070/0329/B/MCP/EDPL.2023 dated 21.06.2024. Accordingly, the construction was also completed without any deviations as per the plans submitted along with the relevant provisions of law.

W.P.No.13397 of 2024:-

37. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.3 dated 25.06.2024 alleging unauthorized construction of the commencement of the subject building for which the petitioner submitted explanation dated 26.06.2024 to the respondent No.3.

38. The counsel for the petitioner also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.243, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 16.06.2023 showing the allotment of 101 the work in Survey No.504-2 of Moolasagaram Village, Nandyala Mandal, Nandyala District in favour of the District President, YSR Congress Party for construction of YSR Congress Party office building on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum as per G.O.Ms.No.340, duly cancelling the land allotment order issued earlier vide G.O.Ms.No.374, dated 18.05.2022 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assn.I) Dept, dated 14.09.2012, under BSO-24A, subject to certain conditions. He also refers to the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.12814 of 2024 dated 21.06.2024 and the order passed by this court as stated above in W.P.No.17688 & 26474 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022.

He further submits that after basement is completed, no further constructions are made pursuant to the issuance of the impugned provisional order.

W.P.No.13408 of 2024:

39. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order of the respondent No.3 dated 24.06.2024 alleging unauthorized construction by the petitioner in an extent of Ac.2-00 in Survey No.660/P of Eluru urban area situated at Beside ASR Stadium, opposite main Railway station area for which the petitioner submitted explanation dated 26.06.2024. 102

40. The learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to the proceedings of the Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru dated 23.06.2022, G.O.Ms.No.358, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 showing the allotment of the land to an extent of Ac.2-00 in R.S.No.660 of Eluru Town and Mandal, Eluiru District in faovur of YSR Congress Party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment of RS.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions, possession handed over certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal dated 14.09.2022, the property tax receipts, and the building permit order issued by the respondent No.4 vide Permit No.1075/0173/B/Ele/RAIL STA/2023 dated 25.06.2024. Accordingly, the construction of the subject building was completed as per the building permit order and as per the plans submitted without any deviations.

W.P.No.13410 of 2024: -

41. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.2 dated 25.06.2024 alleging unauthoised construction residential, ground + first floors for which the petitioner has submitted explanation dated 27.06.2024.

103

42. The counsel for the petitioner submits that almost the building is completed except certain final works. He also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.351, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 showing the allotment of land to an extent of Ac.1-18 cents in Survey No.458-2B at Balagam village, Parvathipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District in favour of YSR Congress Party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions.

The proceedings of the Collector & District Magistrate, Parvathipuram Manyam District, dated 05.12.2022, the possession handed over certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Parvathipuram Mandal, dated 07.12.2022 and the tax payment receipts on the open land.

W.P.No.13412 of 2024: -

43. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.2 dated 24.06.2024 alleging unauthoirsed construction in the premises of D.No./Plat No.NA situated at Vidyanagar Street, Vidyanagar area for which the petitioners submitted their explanation dated 26.06.2024.

104

44. The counsel for the petitioners also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.363, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022 showing the allotment of land to an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in Survey No.1291-5 at East Bapatla Village and Mandal, Bapatla District in favour of YSR Congress party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis for a period of 33 years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions, the certificate of handing over of the possession issued by the Tahsildar, Bapatla Mandal, dated 15.12.2022, the open land tax paid receipts and the building application form submitted by the petitioners to the respondent No.2 vide B.A.No.1019.0051/B/BPT/TC/2023 dated 07.03.2023.

W.P.No.13540 of 2024:

45. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.7 under AP MR & UDA , 2016 dated 25.06.2024 alleging unauthorized construction for which the petitioners submitted its explanation dated 25.06.2024.

46. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.7 has no interest to issue the impugned provisional order. He also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.359, dated 18.05.2022 showing the allotment of land to an 105 extent of Ac.0-72 cents in Survey No.201-3 of NRP Agraharam Village, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District in favour of the petitioners party for construction of party office building on lease basis for a period of 33 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions. The proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari dated 12.04.2024, the possession handed over certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Undi, dated 13.04.2023 and the property tax receipt in the open land dated 25.11.2022.

W.P.No.13557 of 2024: -

47. This writ petition is filed questioning the provisional order issued by the respondent No.2 dated 24.06.2024 alleging unauthorized construction of the petitioners'party office situated at Block No.15-10-A of Lingamguntla Agraharam Narsaraopet Mandal, Palnadu District for which the petitioners submitted their explanation dated 27.06.2024.

48. The counsel for the petitioners also refers to the G.O.Ms.No.364, Revenue (Lands.I) Department, dated 18.05.2022, showing the allotment of land in an extent of Ac.1-15 cents in Block No.15-10-A at Lingamguntla Village, Narsaraopet Mandal, Palnadu District in favour of the petitioners party for construction of party office buildings on lease basis for a period 106 of 33 years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.340, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.07.2016 subject to certain conditions and the proceedings of the Panchayat Secretary, Lingamguntla dated 13.02.2023.

49. However, all the counsels for the petitioners submitted in one voice that the subject buildings are under the threat of demolition at any time without following the due procedure as the above said impugned proceedings are issued across the State in different places more or less on the same dates which gives rise to a strong suspicion that the respondent authorities are predetermined to take coercive action against the petitioners party offices high handedly without giving due opportunity for the petitioners to substantiate their cases. In fact the alleged violations are curable defects only as per law without resorting to any demolitions.

50. Thus, besides making independent submissions, as stated above, the other learned counsels for the petitioners broadly adopted the submissions made by the learned senior counsel Mr.P.Veera Reddy, who appears for the petitioners in W.P.No.13258 of 2024 which need not be repeated as they are already referred above.

51. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General countered all these submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners stating that the 107 respondent authorities will follow the due process of law pursuant to the above said impugned proceedings of provisional orders/confirmation orders/notices as the case may be. In W.P.No.13251 of 2024 also the petitioners were asked to attend the personal hearing on 27.06.2024 but he is not aware whether they have appeared or not. He also further submitted that the confirmation order which is impugned in W.P.No.13244 of 2024 will be treated as provisional order and the petitioners can make explanation to the respondent authorities concerned and if so the same will be considered.

52. The apprehension of the petitioners that their subject buildings will be demolished without following the due procedure by citing the example of demolition of the petitioners'political party's office building at Tadepalli is not correct and the same was demolished only after passing the final orders by following the due procedure and as such the petitioners need not be apprehensive of taking out any demolitions illegally by the respondent authorities concerned. Hence prayed for disposal of these writ petitions enabling the respondent authorities to follow the due procedure under law.

53. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, it is to be seen that admittedly under the policy of the State, the subject sites are allotted to the petitioners 108 for construction of the political party office buildings at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh vide the above said GOs, the delivery of possession of the same were made, the property taxes for the open lands were paid, the building permission applications were made, in some cases building permit orders were also issued, in few cases the building permission applications have to be submitted and in majority of the cases the construction of the subject buildings were almost completed. It is also not the case of the respondents that they have ever visited the subject buildings earlier at the time of constructions and objected for the same on the ground of deviations if any except issuing the above said impugned proceedings after a long gap of time.

54. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there are no deviations from the plans submitted in the construction of the subject buildings and they were taken up by complying with all the required provisions of the law specifically under the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the A.P.MRUDA Act, 2016 and the Rules made therein. They also sought for regularization of the buildings if necessary by imposing penalties on the constructions made already in some cases as it is permissible under law.

They further submitted that the demolitions if any to any extent of the subject buildings will not endure to anybody's benefit except loss of huge money invested already by the petitioners for the subject constructions 109 after paying lots of money towards charges and fee for the sanction of building permissions and the Government also will be deprived of collection of property tax further if the demolitions are taken place when they are not affecting in any manner the public interest. The alleged violations are curable defects under law and the demolitions are not warranted.

55. Be that as it may, since the impugned proceedings were already issued and the explanations have already been submitted which are pending before the authorities concerned, it is just and proper to dispose of these writ petitions enabling the authorities concerned to proceed further in the matters with the following directions:

1) The respondent authorities concerned are directed to proceed with the above said impugned proceedings by following the due procedure in accordance with law.

2) The petitioners are permitted to submit the explanations/ additional explanations, if any, enclosing all the necessary documents and the other proofs if any in support of their claims within a period of two weeks from today to the authorities concerned for the above said purpose.

3) On completion of the said period, the respondent authorities are directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry by considering the 110 explanations/additional explanations of the petitioners by giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned including the petitioners and upon verification of the records and the subject buildings, appropriate decision shall be taken on their own merits in respect of each case.

4) At every stage of the proceedings pending before the authorities concerned, a due opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioners wherever it is warranted under law specifically under the provisions of the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the AP Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and the Rules made thereunder.

5) During the pendency of any of these proceedings before the authorities concerned, there shall not be any coercive steps with respect to the subject buildings to any extent.

6) The petitioners shall be permitted to avail and exhaust all the remedies available under law before the authorities concerned.

7) The respondent authorities while exercising the discretion and decision making shall act fairly and objectively in consonance with the provisions of the law.

8) The power of demolition should be exercised by the respondent authorities concerned only if the deviations made during the construction are not in public interest or cause public nuisance or 111 hazardous or dangerous to the public safety including the residents therein and if the deviations are minor, minimal or trivial, or do not affect public at large the respondent authorities shall not resort to demolition.

and

9) The power of demolition should not be resorted to unless the overwhelming public interest is involved.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN July 4, 2024 Note:

LR copy to be marked {B/o} Lmv 112 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.13258, 13240, 13212, 13244, 13248, 13250, 13251, 13253, 13254, 13272, 13249, 13382, 13389, 13393, 13396, 13397, 13408, 13410, 13412, 13540, 13557 of 2024 04.07.2024 LMV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati