Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Banka Suresh Babu Yadav vs The State Of Ap on 2 September, 2025
APHC010415592025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 897/2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to issue Writ of
Mandamus, declaring action of the 3rd respondent in issuing final order dt.
27-6-2025
2025 vide Roc No. 09/1031/NLR/UC/2024 and illegally ta taking
king steps to
demolish the Petitioners property situated at D.No. 15/465, Venkatram
Puram, Ward No. 15, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District as wholly illegal,
arbitrary, unlawful and in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles
14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the
impugned final order dated 27
27-6-2025
2025 vide Roc 09/1031/NLR/UC/2024 and to
passW.P.No.16018 of 2025
Between:
1. BANKA SURESH BABU YADAV, S/O KONDAIAH, AGED 57, R/O
D.NO. 15/465, VENKATRAMPURAM, REVENUE WARD 15,
NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
2. THANIKONDA SHARMILA KRISHNA,, W/O BANKA SURESH BABU
YADAV, AGED 51, R/O D.NO. 15/465, VENKATRAMPURAM,
REVENUE WARD 15, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,
AMRAVATHI.
HCJ & RCJ
W.A.No.897 of 2025
2
2. THE NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, REP BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, NELLORE.
3. THE COMMISSIONER, NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
4. THE DEPUTY CITY PLANNER, NELLORE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, NELLORE.
...RESPONDENT(S):
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal in
WP.No.16018 of 2025 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of order dated 30.06.2025
in WP.No.16018 of 2025 and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to stay the demolition caused by Respondents in the Petitioner
property situated in an extent of 66 ankanams and 23 square feet in
Venkatrampuram, Ward No. 15, Nellore Municipality pending disposal of the
present writ appeal and pass
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. PATANJALI PAMIDIGHANTAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)
HCJ & RCJ
W.A.No.897 of 2025
3
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 02.09.2025
JUDGMENT
(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 30.06.2025 passed by a learned single Judge in writ petition vide W.P.No.16018 of 2025, the writ petitioners therein preferred this Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. For sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to with their status in the writ petition.
3. The writ petition was filed assailing the final order dated 27.06.2025 passed by respondent no.3 in calling upon the petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction within 24 hours. Through the orders impugned in this Writ Appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition extending the time granted to the petitioners for removal from 24 hours to three (03) weeks.
4. The facts that led to filing of the writ petition are that the respondent no.2-Municipal Corporation issued provisional notice dated 19.12.2024 under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Sections 86, 89(1 & 2) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.897 of 2025 4 Development Authorities Act, 2016 pointing out deviations in construction of the building made by the petitioners contravening the sanctioned plan viz., there were no set backs on all four sides of the building as additional floors were raised and there was deviation in built-up area. The petitioners submitted their explanation without disputing the deviations, however contending that the respondents, without taking any action against similar other buildings of similar nature in the vicinity, sought to take against the petitioners alone. Subsequently, confirmation order dated 02.01.2025 was passed calling upon the petitioners to bring down constructions within the scope of the building Rules within a period of seven (07) days. The said confirmation orders were challenged by filing a Writ Petition on the ground that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the said orders. The said writ petition vide W.P.No.423 of 2025 was disposed of directing the authorities to provide opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, the orders dated 27.06.2025 came to be passed. The said order was challenged in the writ petition.
5. The learned single Judge, upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, disposed of HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.897 of 2025 5 the writ petition as indicated above. The said order was assailed in this writ appeal.
6. Heard Sri Patanjali Pamidighantam, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation.
7. Sri Patanjali Pamidighantam, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, contentions advanced in the writ petition and grounds of appeal, would contend that the final order was passed on the grounds that were not set out in the provisional order and therefore, there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to offer explanation to the new grounds on which the final order was passed. He would further contend that the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge is in violation of the settled principle of law that if deviations can be regularized, the authorities shall not resort to demolish of the structures. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Appeal.
8. Per contra, Sri ASC Bose, learned Standing Counsel, while reiterating the contentions advanced in the writ petition, would contend that the nature of building being high-raise and the construction having been made in utter deviation of the approved plan showing scant respect for Building Rules, the HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.897 of 2025 6 same has to be pulled down to the approved plan. He would further contend that the learned single Judge upon considering the magnitude of deviation and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unauthorized constructions cannot be allowed to stand or be given a seal of approval by the Court, had rightly disposed of the writ petition granting adequate time to the petitioners to carry out the demolition, therefore, the order impugned does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Appeal.
9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
10. The facts emanate from the record and submissions made by learned counsel are that the petitioners obtained building plan for construction of a residential building: Stilt, Ground + three (03) upper floors, whereas they made construction of Cellar, Ground Floor and Seven (7) upper floors without leaving setbacks on any side and the Stilt floor was converted as a habitable floor that too for commercial use. It is evident that instead of five (05) floors, as many as nine (09) floors were constructed. As against the built-up area of 1119.9 Sq.mts. in sanctioned plan, the construction was made HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.897 of 2025 7 in 3500 Sq.mts. The petitioners did not dispute violation of sanctioned building plan in their explanation.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that unauthorized constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are required to be dealt with by firm hands, otherwise the builders would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would go scot free and therefore there should be zero tolerance to illegal constructions by those who treat the law to be their subservient. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that unauthorized constructions cannot be perpetuated and they necessarily be demolished gave directions that till completion/occupancy certificate is produced, no water, sewage, electricity connections etc., nor trade licence should be given.
12. As rightly held by the learned single Judge not even a single column is in accordance with the sanctioned building plan including change of usage of land from residential to commercial. As stated supra, the petitioners did not dispute the violations pointed out in the said provisional notice. Considering the magnitude of deviation in construction of the building, the learned single Judge had rightly directed the petitioners to remove the illegal and unauthorized floors and bring it back to the approved plan by affording HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.897 of 2025 8 sufficient time to carry it out. The said order, in our view, requires no interference.
13. The contention that final order was passed on new set of grounds which were not raised in the provisional order is misconceived and unsustainable. Except taking a bald plea, the learned counsel for the appellants did not specifically state as to what prejudice was caused to the appellants and in what way the principles of natural justice were violated. Not every omission in provisional order would render the final order passed based on the omitted part invalid, unless it is shown that had there not been such omission, the probable explanation that would have been offered by the appellants would have overturn the outcome of the final order. Further, the omissions of inconsequential nature won't invalidate the final decision unless those errors have resulted in a significant and material disadvantage to a party. The appellants did not specify as to what are those new set of grounds, imperative nature of those grounds and what would be the probable explanation the petitioners would have offered had they been raised in the provisional order itself, so as to claim violation of principles of natural justice. Be that as it may, it is evident that the petitioners made construction in blatant violation of building plan & A.P.Building Rules.
HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.897 of 2025 9
14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same deserves dismissal.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR