Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8547
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Induru Bharath – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition | 16428 of 2025
For the Appellant: Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurt
For the Respondent: GP Municipal Admin and Urban Development AP
Due process must be observed in municipal actions affecting private property, especially when related appeals are pending.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 - Section 90(6) - Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 - The petition challenges the attempt to seal premises without considering the appeal against prior endorsement, deeming such an act illegal and arbitrary - The court orders maintenance of status quo for two weeks pending the petitioner's explanation submission. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Judicial review - The court emphasizes adherence to principles of natural justice, particularly in cases involving potential harm to private properties where due process must be observed. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges an attempt by the municipal corporation to seal their house, alleging no due process was followed as a related appeal was pending.
Findings of Court:
The court orders maintenance of status quo and requires the petitioner to submit an explanation regarding the endorsement. If no response is received, the authority may proceed further.
Issues: The main issue involves the legality of the sealing action and adherence to proper procedural requirements despite the ongoing appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any action taken to affect a person's property must follow due process, especially when a relevant appeal is pending.
Result: The court directed the respondents to maintain status quo for two weeks and sought an explanation from the petitioner.
The petition comI'ng On for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Advocate for the petitioner and of GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP for the Respondents, the court made the following.
¢ ORDER f£The present writ pie. tition is filecl to declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in trying to seal the pe{itioner's resl-dential house bearing D.No.26-1/610 in Plot No.69 covered under sy.No.468 situated at Bhaktavatsala Nagar, Kondayapalem, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District without considering the pendency of Appeal preferred by him before the Respondent Nos.1 {o 3 under section 90(6) of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 against the Endorsement Roe.No.351276/2024/G2, dated 20.06.2025, as iIIega'l and arbitrary.
The impugned order in the Appeal is an Endorsement, dated 20.06.2025.
As per the impugned order, the petitioner had applied for approval of building permission for construction of G + 1 residentI-al building in an extent of 222.97 Sq. meters and obtained permission through online DPMS on
02,O1.2024. However, during supervisory checks, certain shortfalls were observed and shortfa" endorsement was issued on 29.07.2024 for compliance of shortfall information.
However, as there were deviations I-n the COnStruCtiOn, a Provisional notice was I-SSued On 15.03.2024 and subsequently confI-rmatiOn Order Was Passed On 08.04.2024, wherein the deviations with regard to setbacks on all sides were pointed out.
In the endorsement dated 20.06.2025, the Respondent authority directed the petitioner to vacate the premises under section 462(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short fA.P.M.C. Act,1955) within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of endorsement. pending vacation of the subject building, the petitioner was directed to submit wrl-tten explanation before the commissl-oner, NeIIore Municipal Corporation as to why necessary further action shall not be initI-ated under Section 461-A(1) of the A.P.M.C. Act, 1955, failing which necessary action would be initiatecI.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there I-S a threat of sealing the premises pursuant to the impugned endorsement and hence the Present Writ Petition is filed.
The learned standing counsel for the Respondent-corporation submits that necessary notice will be issued under section 461-A(1) of the A|P,M.C.
3' 6.
Act,1955 to the Pet-ltioner calling for his explanation and thereafter necessary t|
action would be initiated.
ln the light of submissions made and as the impugned order is se[f-
explanatory the Respondent authorities are directed to maintain status quo for a period of two (2) weeksI [n the interregnumJ the Petitioner shall submit his- explanation to the impugned endorsement date'd 20.06.2025 issued by the Respondent authorI-ties Within a Period Of One (1) week from today.
Further, the Respondent authority is at liberty to pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) week after receipt of the explanation from 1:he Petitioner. /
Post this case on 16.07.2025." sd,I- lk.+Ain RAG //TRUE COPY//
