Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G.Jayaprakash vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 April, 2025
1
0an
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: WP.No. 9843 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
VN,J
17.04.2025
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner(s) is
permitted to take out personal notice to the
respondents and file proof of service into the
Registry.
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Notice dated 2.04.2015 issued under Sections 461(2) 462, 452, 428 and 429 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1955, whereunder the Petitioner was called upon to demolish the structures within a period of 7 days, failing which, action would be taken as per APMC Act, 1955.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is a civil litigation pending between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 and the issue is now pending before this 2 Court in S.A.No.231 of 2018 wherein an interim direction was passed in I.A.No.01 of 2018 directing status quo to be maintained pending Second Appeal. While the second appeal is pending, the present Notice was issued at the instance of Respondent No.3 i.e., the Respondent/Plaintiff in S.A.No. 231 of 2018. Pursuant to the complaint issued by Respondent No.3, the impugned Order was passed on the ground that the Petitioner did not take any building permission from Thimminaidupalem gramapanchayat as per the Andhra Pradesh Building and Layout Rules in Panchayat Area, vide G.O.Ms.No.67, PR and RD, dated 26.02.2002.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Commissioner could also explore the possibilities of regularizing the structures under section 455-A of the Act before issuing the impugned Order. He further submits that the building is in accordance with the building rules in vogue and its regulations 3 and before passing the impugned Order, the Commissioner could have examined the aspect of regularization as provided under Section 455-A of APMC Act.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that in the absence of any application seeking for regularization, the impugned Order cannot be faulted.
Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the building in question is subject matter of Second Appeal and further, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Commissioner before passing the impugned order could also have called upon the Petitioner to make an application under Section 455-A of the Act or before passing the impugned Order.
In that view, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to take any further action pursuant to the Notice dated 02.04.2025 for a period of 10 weeks. 4
Post the matter on 21.04.2025.
In the meanwhile, the Petitioner is at liberty to file an application under Section 455- A of the Act seeking for regularization of the building and the Commissioner may consider the same subject to the out of the Second Appeal No. 231 of 2018.
VN,J eha