APHC010050102026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3328]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 2878/2026 Between:

1. A TTLURI SURYA KUMARI, W/O.TRINADH, AGED 33 YEARS OCC HOUSEWIFE , R/O.D.NO.6A-9-29, SOUTHERN STREET, PALATHUMUCENTER, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, AP 534001 ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT

522238 2.

2. T HE ELURU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, AP REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER 534001 3.B

3. B HAIRAVABHOTLA VISALA, W/O.B.SATYA NARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 58YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0.6A-9-29, DHAKSHINAPUVEEDHI, NEARASHOKA CHEKRAM, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, AP 534001 ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2ND respondent in threatening to demolish the compund wall of the petitioners house bearing D.No.6A-9-29, Southern Street, Eluru without considering the explanation dt08-01-2026 submitted in reply to the impugned notice dt29-12-2025 issued by the 2ND respondent as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 19 and 300-Aof the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 2ND espondent not to interfer with the Petitioner house in D.N0.6A- 9-29, Southern street, Eluruand pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent no 2 not to demolish the petitioners compound wall D.N0.6A- 9-29, Southern street, Eluru&consider petitioner’s reply dt:-08-01-2026 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri A. Lalith Nikhil, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.

Yaswanth, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Vijaya Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations and Sri P. Siva Prasad, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri E. Seshu Mahesh Babu, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.3.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned Proceeding dated 29.12.2025 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Eluru (Ex.P.1). He would submit that the notice is in the nature of ‘Final Order’ directing the Writ Petitioner to remove the encroachments. He had drawn the attention of this Court to the Town Surveyor’s Remarks dated 16.09.2025 mentioned in the reference. He would submit that the Town Surveyor has also never issued any notice before preparing the said Remarks dated 16.09.2025 and that abruptly the Respondent Officials had directed the Writ Petitioner to remove the encroachments. He would submit that the impugned action of the Official Respondents is arbitrary and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

3. Sri Vijaya Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Municipal Corporation has placed reliance on Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and would submit that insofar as the Endorsements are concerned, the Corporation is not duty bound to issue any notice. Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 had come into effect in the year 1955, whereas, much water has flown down under the bridge (please see: (1) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., : (1985) 3 SCC 545, Para Nos.44 and 48 (2) Ahme