APHC010175152014 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: 18298/2014 Between:

Smt. Mummana Varalakshmi, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The District Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. D SATYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

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

The Court made the following order:

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

“…to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondent without issuing the notice to the petitioners demolished the staircase of the house which is under construction and warned the petitioners to demolish the entire house even thou he is not competent authority which is illegal unjust, unfair against principals of the natural justice under article 14, 16, 21 of the constitution of India.

(a) Consequently, the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents not to interrupt the petitioner no 1 & 2 to construct the house where the 3^rd respondent has sanctioned in 2004 sq.yards 60 in Sy.No.135/p in Chinamushidiwada village, in Pendurty Mandal, vishakapatnam dist, under Board Standing Orders 21 vide R.C.No.23/2004, dated 22.01.2004 And as per Counter receipt application nos.2014-BA-11390, 2014-BA-11391 and cash receipt no

53653, 54654 before the 2^nd respondent and pass…”

2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 allotted government patta land measuring 60 Sq. yards for residential purposes to the petitioners in Sy.No.135/P in Chinamushidiwada village, Pendurty Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Subsequently, the village was merged into the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) in 2012. On 12.03.2014, the petitioners submitted an application to respondent No. 2, the GVMC, for building permission to construct a house on the said government patta land, after duly paying an amount of Rs. 5,500/-. However, on 20.06.2014, respondent No. 3, without issuing any notice, demolished the staircase constructed by the petitioners.

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2014, this Court passed the following interim order:

“….Having regard to the patta in Rc.No.23/2004 dt.22-01-2004 issued to the petitioners by the office of 3^rd respondent, it is not open to the respondents to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioners without following due process of law. Therefore, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents to follow due process of law, if they wish to demolish further the structures erected by the petitioners in the subject property. Petitioners also shall not make any further construction without obtaining any sanction from

2^nd respondent.”

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The respondent No. 3 has filed a detailed counter-affidavit, acknowledging that the petitioners were granted house site pattas for an extent of 60 Sq. Yards in the year 2004. However, it is stated that, as per the conditions for the grant of the patta, the petitioners were required to complete construction within twelve (12) months. It is further stated that the petitioners failed to complete the construction within the stipulated time. Additionally, it is noted that merely submitting an application for approval of the building plan to respondent No. 2 does not imply that the building plan has been approved.

6. According to the counter-affidavit, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were granted a patta for an extent of 60 sq. yards in the year 2004.

Subsequently, the petitioners submitted an application to respondent No