APHC010068042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3882/2025 Between:

Vadluri Santosh Maruty Ramam ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and another ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K VENKATESH 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 an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the orders dated 01.02.2025 in ref notice No.01/73SEC/WARD 37/2025/CIRCLE 8 wherein directed the petitioner to bring down the constructions at premises bearing No.22512/1 TS No 816/P, Veerabadrapuram, Rajamahendravaram as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive action pursuant to the said notice and allow the petitioner to complete the construction at said premises …...”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he intends to construct a building after demolishing the old building situated at Door No.22-5-12/1, TS No.816/P, Veerabadrapuram of Rajamahendravaram, in accordance with the building permission dated 15.05.2024 granted by the 2^nd respondent for construction of Ground + two floors. A mortgage deed was accordingly executed by the petitioner in favour of the 2^nd respondent on 21.03.2024 vide document No.14346 of 2024 as a condition precedent for sanctioning the plan. The petitioner started the construction as per the approved plan, and during the said process, the dilapidated compound wall of the petitioner’s southern side adjacent to the neighbour’s house was collapsed and immediately a pucca cement compound wall was constructed without any damage to the neighbour’s building. However, while the petitioner was proceeding with the construction, the neighbor, boring a grudge against him, instigated the office of the 2^nd respondent. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent issued a notice dated 19.11.2024, directing the petitioner to stop the work and remove the deviated portion, mentioning that there is a deviation on north and southern sides. In response, the petitioner submitted an explanation stating that there was a misconception that he was making constructions in deviation to the approved plan. He clarified that no such deviation occurred and further informed that the first slab had not been laid. Any deviation, if present, was trivial and was done for Vastu purposes. However, the 2^nd respondent issued a Confirmation Order dated 01.02.2025, stating that the petitioner’s reply was unsatisfactory and directed him to bring down the construction into the rule frame within seven days. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

4. On a perusal of the impugned Confirmation Order dated 01.02.2025, issued under Sections 452(2) & 461(2) of APMC Act 1955 and under Section 86, 89(3) of APMR & UDA Act 2016, it can be observed that, in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by the 2^nd respondent on 19.11.2024, the petitioner has submitted an explanation requesting the respondent authorities to conduct an inspection, as he has not deviated the building permission granted to him. However, except stating that the reply given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and contrary to the provisions of rules in force, no reasons are assigned by respondent No.2 as to what are the specific violations committed by the petitioner. The said Confirmation Order is issued without assigning any