APHC010599642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31328/2024 Between:

K.M.Shakeel Shafi ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the notice in Rc.No.3348/209-G1 dated 20.12.2024 whereunder the 2^nd respondent has directed the petitioner to remove alleged encroachment (Compound Wall) in survey No.59/2A and 59/2C of Kaklapally Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Ananthapuram District within 7 days which notice was served on petitioner through Whatsup on 26.12.2024, being bad, illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and offends Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India besides contrary to the provisions of HMC Act 1955 and consequentially to set aside the same.….”

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the Correspondent of Crescent English Medium High School, which has been constructed and is being maintained in plot Nos.25, 26 and 27 in Survey Nos.59/2A and 59/2C, Kakalapally Village, Ananthapuram Rural Mandal and District, for the last 30 years by their joint family, having been purchased through various documents. One T.Vijay Kumar and T.Naresh, who had earlier filed W.P.No.14998 of 2005 and W.P.No.18284 of 2017 claiming to be the owners of plot Nos.23 and 24 on the northern side of the petitioner’s plot agitating that there was short fall to their plots and opposing to lay road to the southern side of their plot Nos.23 and 24 and the northern side of the petitioner’s plots. In fact, there is a 30 feet road existed, as per the approved layout, in between the plots of the petitioner and the said persons, which is being used for public as well as students of the school.

3. While the matter stood thus, the 2^nd respondent/Commissioner, Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation, issued notice vide Rc.No.3348/2009- G1, dated 20.12.2024 through WhatsApp on 26.12.2024, directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachments within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that, prior to issuance of the impugned notice directing the petitioner to remove the encroachments within seven days; the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing nor submission of any explanation in his interest. The said proceedings were issued based on a survey report and in accordance with the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.14998 of 2005 and 18284 of 2017 filed by the neighbours. However, the notice does not specify the details of the alleged encroachments. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said notice.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation for respondent No.2.

5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel has stated that, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14998 of 2005 and 18284 of 2017, notices were issued to the petitioners in those writ petitions as well as to the petitioner in the present writ petition. Thereafter, a joint survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner herein and the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions, and submitted a report. However, a copy of the report was not furnished to the petitioner. Subsequently, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner afte