Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V Chinna Poli Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 9 July, 2025
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/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.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
WRIT PETITION NO: 16947/2025
Between:
1. V CHINNA POLI REDDY, S/O CHINNA POLL REDDY, AGE 48
YEARS, R/O 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/O 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 DEV AP
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.16942 and 16947 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
1. These Writ Petitions are filed questioning the orders in Roc.No.69/1123/BDL/UC/2024 and Roc.No.68/1123/BDL/UC/2024, dated 04.07.2025 respectively in seizing the residential buildings in D.Nos.6-6-165/7 and 6-6-165/6 in Chennampalli village, within the limits of Badvel Municipality, Y.S.R. District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petitions are as follows:-
The Petitioners are the absolute owners of the above referred residential buildings. A building plan was issued for construction of G+2 residential building by the Respondent-Municipality vide B.A.No.10/2010. According to the Petitioners, the buildings were completed. While so, an order under Section 340-A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short "A.P.M.C. Act, 1965") was passed by the Respondent authority seizing the building with immediate effect. Hence, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 4
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 favour of the Petitioners is held to be genuine, the construction of 5 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. 6
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 7 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. 8
(v) No orders as to costs.
11. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 08.07.2025 IS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.16942 and 16947 of 2025 Date: 08.07.2025 IS