APHC010018912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1022/2025 Between:

Balla Chandrika ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations

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

The Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with the construction of Ground + first floor being raised by the Petitioner over the premises bearing Municipal No.D.No.3-16-1/3 of Rajyalakshmi Nagar Street/Colony, Godarigunta Area, Kakinada District (Erstwhile East Godavari District), Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of the building permit granted by the authorities and further trying to pull down the structures in a high handed manner, without even considering the representation dated 01.07.2024 made by the Petitioner as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being in utter violation of Section 452-A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1995 and the other relevant Rules framed in the said Act and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish any part of the building without following due process of law and pass…”

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor in respect of premises bearing D.Nos.3-16-1/3 of Rajyalakshmi Nagar Street/Colony, Godarigunta Area, Kakinada District (Erstwhile East Godavari District), Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has submitted an application to the respondent No.2 for grant of building permission for construction of Ground + first floor over the said premises and accordingly, the respondent No.2 has granted permission vide orders dated 13.09.2023. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has raised second floor over and above the permission granted by the municipal authorities. As there is a deviation from the sanctioned plan, the petitioner has approached the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and offered to pay penalty as imposed by the Corporation in order to regularize the said second floor raised by her.

3. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued a provisional order dated 24.06.2024, calling for explanation from the petitioner with regard to the deviations made by the petitioner to the sanctioned plan. Challenging the said provisional order the petitioner filed W.P.No.13983 of 2024, the same was disposed of on 04.07.2024, permitting the petitioner to submit explanation within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to the above said provisional order dated 24.06.2024. On receipt of the same, the respondent No.2 is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry in pursuance of the above said provisional order dated 24.06.2024 by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject building, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall not be any coercive steps.

4. The case of the petitioner as on today is that she has submitted an explanation on 01.07.2024. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 01.07.2024 and without issuing any final provisional notice, the subordinates of the respondent No.2 visited the premises and tried to pull down the second floor constructed by the petitioner. However, the case of the petitioner is that t