A court may grant a temporary status quo on demolition and allow a party to apply for regularization of construction if the request is deemed reasonable and the party is willing to seek formal approval from municipal authorities.

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: (LUNCH MOTION)

Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.S.S.R. Krishna Uppuluri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Goli G.V.S. Sai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief :

“……. to issue a Writ of Mandamus' or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein in issuing the Demolition Order bearing Notice No.1073/109/WPRS/030/2021, dated 03.02.2026 under Sections 452(2) and 461(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1955 , as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the said Demolition Order bearing Notice No. 1073/109/WPRS/030/2021, Dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Respondents Nos.2 to 4, and consequently direct the Respondents herein to afford the Petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and consider the Petitioners case for regularization of the construction in accordance with law, and pass such……”

3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the violations are of minor in nature and he is willing to rectify them at the earliest. Sri Goli G.V.S. Sai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has taken this Court through the previous plans obtained by the Landlords. He would submit that the Writ Petitioner who was the tenant has completely deviated from the building plan which has been approved by the Corporation at the behest of the Landlords. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Page No.23, which reflects actual permissions obtained by the Landlords.

4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner has not undertaken construction of work in accordance with the old plans. The Writ Petitioner rather intends to construct ACC Shed. The Photographs supplied by the Respondents would also indicate that the shed has been erected which indicates that the Writ Petitioner who is the tenant had given-up the idea to build in accordance with the earlier approved plan. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that, if sufficient time is granted, he would approach the Respondent Authorities and submit a fresh Application seeking approval of the plan for construction of ACC Shed and other related constructions and till then the already erected shed may be protected from being demolished because the demolition would cause financial loss to the Writ Petitioner.

5. Having considered above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the request made by the Writ Petitioner is reasonable. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Writ Petitioner to approach the Respondent Authorities within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court by making appropriate Application. If such Application is made, the Official Respondents shall consider the same and act in accordance with law and communicate the outcome within four weeks to the Writ Petitioner. Till such time, the Respondents are directed to maintain Status-quo obtaining as on today.

6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.