Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 106 (AP)

Mothiki Satyavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-06

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2023
JUDGMENT Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Sri K. J. V. N. Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondents No.2 & 3. 2. Notice has been accepted by the learned AGP for Municipal Administration, representing respondent No.1. 3. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided at this stage. 4. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: '...to issue a writ order ot direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring action of the respondents 2 and 3 in issuing the impugned notice of demolition dt.14.10.2022, Vide U.C.No.01/2022/TPBO/WPRS/Sec.594 against his building construction with House No.6-166, Covered with TS No.810/1, situated at 5th Division, Vinayaka Nagar, Chataparu road, Eluru Corporation, erstwhile Venkatapuram Panchayat, Eluru Mandal and district, further declare the proposed action of the respondents in demolition the alleged unauthorized construction of petitioner's above said building, is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and also violation of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955, as well as principals of natural justice and set aside the impugned notice of demolition dt. 14.10.2022 Vide U.C.No.01/2022/TPBO/WPRS/Sec.594 issued by the 3rd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to drop the further proceedings on the impugned notice of demolition Dt.14.10.2022 vide U.C.No.01/2022/TPBO/WPRS/Sec.594 issued by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner's building House No.6-166, Covered with TS No.810/1, situated at 5th Division, Vinayaka Nagar, Chataparu road, Eluru Corporation and pass such other order or orders.....' 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a notice under Sections 452 and 461 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1994 read with Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 with respect to the construction of the building, alleged to be in deviation of the building permit, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation. He submits that the petitioner submitted explanation on 26.10.2022, though the acknowledgment thereof was not given. He further submits that the final orders have not yet been passed pursuant to the provisional order/notice dated 14.10.2022, but the authorities of the 2nd respondent are trying to demolish the part of the building, subject matter of the notice. 6. He submits that the petitioner submitted explanation on 26.10.2022, though the acknowledgment thereof was not given. He further submits that the final orders have not yet been passed pursuant to the provisional order/notice dated 14.10.2022, but the authorities of the 2nd respondent are trying to demolish the part of the building, subject matter of the notice. 6. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, on the basis of the written instructions, submits that pursuant to the notice dated 14.10.2022, the petitioner requested for further time to file reply under the compelling circumstances stated, but did not file any reply. He further submits that final order has not yet been passed and the said order will be passed only after considering the petitioner's reply, which the petitioner submits to have given on 26.10.2022, Ex.P2, annexed to this petition, if the copy thereof is furnished before the 2nd respondent. 7. As the controversy is short and the provisional order has been passed at the same time issuing show cause notice to the petitioner to submit the reply and as the final order has not yet been passed, the writ petition is being disposed of finally, with the following directions: i) The petitioner shall furnish copy of her reply dated 26.10.2022, Ex.P2, afresh along with copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; ii) The 2nd respondent shall pass final orders after taking into consideration the petitioner's reply, in accordance with law, within further period of four weeks; iii) Till the final decision is so taken, no coercive action shall be taken with respect to the subject property pursuant to the provisional order; iv) Till the final decision is taken, the petitioner shall also not raise any further construction, except as per the building plan; and v) If the petitioner does not comply with the direction as contained in clause (i) supra, the benefit of this order shall not be available; vi) Even if the petitioner does not comply with clause (i) supra, the 2nd respondent shall pass final order, in accordance with law; 8. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.