SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 25311

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
KARNA SUGUNAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 2165/2025



APHC010042572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2165/2025 Between:

Karna Sugunamma and others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Confirmation Order dated 07.01.2025 vide Notice No.111/1031/NLR/UC/2024 issued by the 2nd respondent thereby directed the petitioners to pull down the alleged deviation of setbacks within a period of seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the above order failing which the 2nd respondent would initiate action to demolish the construction of Ground + 3 floors in Plot No.29 in an extent of 404.44 square yards covered by Survey Nos.863, 864 and 865 situated at Adithya Nagar, Nellore City, Nellore Municipal Corporation limits, SPSR Nellore District, without considering the explanation dated 03.01.2025 submitted to the Provisional Order dated 17.12. 2024 vide Notice No.111/1031/NLR/UC/2024, without giving opportunity of personal hearing and without passing speaking/reasoned order, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Confirmation Order dated 07.01.2025 vide Notice No.111/1031/NLR/UC/2024 issued by the 2nd respondent and direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with petitioners’ construction of Ground + 3 floors in Plot No.29 in an extent of 404.44 square yards covered by Survey Nos.863, 864 and 865 situated at Adithya Nagar, Nellore City, Nellore Municipal Corporation limits, SPSR Nellore District …...”

2. The petitioners are the absolute owners, possessors and enjoyers of house site property bearing Plot No.29 in an extent of 404.44 square yards, situated in Sy.Nos.863, 864 and 865 at Adithya Nagar, Nellore City, Nellore Municipal Corporation limits, SPSR Nellore District. On an application submitted by the petitioners seeking building permission, respondent No.2 after verifying the online application filed by the petitioners, granted building permit order on 09.08.2024 vide Permit No.1031/0870/B/NMC/ADNGR/2024, for construction of Ground + 3 floors in the above house site property.

3. While the things stood thus, a person by name Pallamreddy Hari Prasad Reddy, S/o Venkureddy, who is the petitioners’ neighbor has constructed his residential apartment adjacent to the petitioners’ house and requested the petitioners to sell their house site property to him as he was doing real estate business. As the petitioners refused to sell their property, the said Pallamreddy Hari Prasad Reddy boring grudge against the petitioners, lodged a complaint to respondent No.2, alleging that the petitioners were proceeding with unauthorized construction. But, however, as no action has been initiated as against the said complaint, the said Pallamreddy Hari Prasad Reddy approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26356 of 2024, which was disposed of on 21.11.2024 by recording the statement of respondent No.2 that they have already issued a Provisional Notice in favour of the petitioners on

13.11.2024.

4. The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the said notice dated 13.11.2024 the petitioners have submitted a written explanation on 18.11.2024 stating that the complaint raised by Pallamreddy Hari Prasad Reddy is absolutely false and also requested respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry before interfering into the said construction. Sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top