Unauthorized construction contradicts approved plans and must comply with municipal regulations.

ORDER :

Nyapathy Vijay, J.

The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated 27.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 vide Roc.No.09/1031/NLR/UC/2024 under Sections 636, 452 (4) of A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Sections 89(4), 90, 91 of A.P.MURDA Act, 2016 calling upon the Petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction within 24 hours.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The Petitioners are the owners of an extent of 66 Ankanams and 23 sq. ft. in Venkatram Puram, Ward No.15, Nellore Municipality, having purchased of the same under registered sale deed bearing Document No.3284/2019 dated 10.04.2019. Pursuant to the purchase, the Petitioners applied for building permission on 16.08.2021 for construction of individual residential building and the same was approved by Respondent No.3-Corporation vide proceedings dated 19.10.2022.

3. As per the building permit, the Petitioners were permitted to construct Ground floor + Stilt + three (3) upper floors. While so, a notice dated 19.12.2024 was issued to the Petitioners pointing out deviations in the construction in exercise of power under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and under Sections 86, 89(1 & 2) of the A.P. MR & UDA Act, 2016. As per the provisional notice, there is a violation in the setbacks on all four sides of the building as additional four floors were raised. However, deviations pointed out in the provisional notice were that; (a) premises was being used for commercial purpose and (b) there is a deviation of built-up area of 2380.1 square meters.

4. The Petitioners thereafter gave an explanation on 26.12.2024 without disputing the deviations and contended that several buildings of similar nature are there in the vicinity, but the Respondent-authority has not taken any action except against the Petitioners. It is also stated that no objection was received by the Respondent-authorities at the time of construction. After receipt of the explanation from the Petitioners, the confirmation order was passed on 02.01.2025 calling upon the Petitioners to bring down constructions within the scope of the building Rules within a period of seven (7) working days.

5. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.423 of 2025 before this Court that personal hearing was not offered to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order. This Court, by following the order in W.P.No.6321 of 2024, by order dated 07.01.2025, disposed of W.P.No.423 of 2025 directing the Respondent-authorities to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks.

6. Accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the Petitioners on 17.06.2025 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, the impugned order was passed on 27.06.2025 vide Roc.No.09/1031/NLR/UC/2024. Hence, this writ petition.

7. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners and Sri A.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation.

8. Learned senior counsel contended that the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 specifies aspects which were not contemplated in the original show cause notice i.e. the non-applicability of the building Transfer Development Rights as there are no set-backs on all sides of the building, non-applicability of regularisation of constructions under Section 455A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the building in question poses a danger. Learned senior counsel would contend that these facts were not mentioned in the provisional notice and therefore, relying on those aspects for passing the impugned order cannot be sustained.

9. Learned standing counsel on written instructions would submit that contrary to the approved building plan, the Petitioners constructed Cellar + Ground Floor + Seven (7) upper floors and that the Stilt Floor was converted as a habitable floor. It is stated that pursuan