JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri C. Venkaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the respondent No.1 and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Eluru Municipal Corporation and its authority.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of notice to respondent No.4 is considered not necessary and is dispensed with.

3. The Writ Petition is being deciding finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

4. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ under Article 226 of constitution of India declaring the confirmation order issued under Sec. 452 (2) and 461 (2) r/w 428, 429 of A. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and under 89 (3) of A. P. M. R. and U. D. A. Act 2016 by 2nd respondent - Municipal Commissioner, vide notice No. 16/1075/ELR/UC/ 2023, dated 24.04.2023 threatening to take action in respect of constructions of petitioners residential house in two floors situated in Door No.23B-6-14/1, though mentioned in the house tax receipt as 23B-6-14/2 of Eluru Municipal Corporation in the site of 193 Sq. yards in TS. No. 101/84 without considering petitioner”s detailed written reply explanations submitted to official respondents dated 18.01.2023 and 18.04.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, ultravires, contrary to the procedure established by Law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and against the spirit of judgment reported in 2013 (6) ALT page 42 held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh between Kadiyala Sudarsan and others vs. Government of A. P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others apart from being violative of Article 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of said residential house by setting aside the impugned confirmation order dated 24.04.2023 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father purchased an extent of 193 Sq. Yrds of site situated in RS.No.101/84, bearing Door No.23B-6-14/1 of Eluru Municipal Corporation under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.1985 from one, Indana Mallikarjuna Rao and constructed ground floor with slab and first floor after obtaining sanctioned plan from the respondent No.2, the Eluru Municipal Corporation after the death of the petitioner’s father in 2006, the petitioner is residing with his family in the said house. Recently, the western side of the house wall of the first floor building and some other portion was damaged. The petitioner started carrying out the repairs without damaging the nature of the building and not in violation of the rules or structural stability of the building.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4, his neighbor filed W.P.No.42358 of 2022 for direction to the Corporation to take action on his representation on the allegation that the constructions were unauthorized. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.02.2023, with direction to the respondent No.2 to take steps to demolish the unauthorized construction after giving notice to the present petitioner by following due process of law. The petitioner filed W.A.No.297 of 2023 which was withdrawn and thereafter, he filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.42358 of 2022 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 02.02.2023 which is pending.

7. The respondent No.2 issued provisional orde