ORDER

The above writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Net Cricket Sports Hub being run under the name and style of CRICZ HUB in an extent of 1658.32 Sq.yards situated in Plot Nos.45 to 48 in R.S.No.401/1A 2 in L.P.No.140/88 of Pidingoyye, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and trying to demolish the same with the help of respondents 4 and 5, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Notice vide U.C.No.11/2023/RJY/TPS/CIRCLE No.4, Secretariat No.20, dated 13.12.2023 was issued under Sections 452 (1) and 461(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “MC Act”) and Sections 86, 89 (1 & 2), and 90(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (for short “the Act, 2016”) to the petitioner. Since no explanation was submitted by the petitioner, confirmation order vide Notice No.11/2023/TPS2/CIRCLE No.04/SECRETARIAT No.20, dated 21.12.2023 was issued under Sections 452 (1) and 461(1) of MC Act and Sections 86 and 89 (3) of the Act, 2016. Assailing the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Yaswanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that neither the provisional notice nor confirmation order was served on the petitioner. Writ petition is filed when the authorities are interfering with the construction of the petitioner.

5. Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that provisional notice was pasted to the gate of the property on 13.12.2023 and later, confirmation order was pasted to the gate on 21.12.2023. The petitioner without disclosing the said facts, approached this Court.

6. In number of writ petitions, the respective petitioners have been denying service of notice be it provisional or conformation order. On that ground alone, the writ petitions are being disposed directing the authority to provide fresh opportunity.

7. Section 631 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 deals with service of notice on the owner or occupier. Section 631 of the Act reads as under:

“631. Service on owner or occupier of premises how to be effected:- When any notice, bill, schedule, summons or other such document is required by this Act, or by any regulation or by-law made under this Act, to be served upon or issued or presented to the owner or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner or occupier therein and the service, issue or presentation thereof shall be effected, not in accordance with the provisions of the last preceeding section but as follows, namely:-

(a) by giving or tendering the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document to the owner or occupier, or if there be more than one owner or occupier to any one of the owners or occupiers of such building or land; or (b) if the owner or occupier or no one of the owners or occupiers is found by giving or tendering the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document to some adult male member or servant of the family of the owner or occupier or of any one of the owners or occupiers; or (c) if none of the means aforesaid be available by causing the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other document to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which the same relates.

8. A careful perusal of the section extracted supra would indicate that the notice should be served on the owner or occupier in the first instance. If the owner or occupier is not found, it should be served on the adult male member or servant or occupier of the family. If the notices are not served in the modes mentioned in clauses (a) & (b), the authority shall serve notice as per the mo