Itta/2/2021 Of The Pr Commissioner Income Tax v. Mannavabapaiah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH(Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHAWRIT PETITION NO: 3519 OF 2025 AMARAVATl Between: Sri. Vaddi Nagendra, S/o.V.Chinna Kondaia, Aged 51[Years,][ R/0.8-367A]Gooty, Ananthapuram District, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal[Secretary,]Municipality Administration and Urban Development(MA[and][ UD)]Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi.Municipality Administration and Urban Development(MA[and][ UD)]Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi. 2. Gooty Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, AnantapurDistrict, A.P. 3. Town Planning Section, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur[District,][ A.P.] ...RESPONDENTS Petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying[that][ in]the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,[the][ High][ Court][ may]orders or direction more particularly one inbe pleased to pass an order orinthe nature of a[writ of][ mandamus][ questioning][ action][ of][ respondent][ No.2]confirmation orders vide Notice No. 2/1156/GY/UC/2022issuing impugneddated 31.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025 by confirming[the][ show-cause]NO.2/1156/GY/UC/2022dated23.12.2024noticeissuedvideNoticeNo.3/1156/GY/UC/2022datedreceivedon20.01.2025andNotice31.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025 by confirming the[show-cause][ notice]issued vide Notice No. 3/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 23.12.2024[received][ oh]20.01.2025andservingboththeprovisionalorders andconfirmatiorrorderscollectively and thereby respectively directing the[Petitioner][ herein]to bring down the entire building consisting in the[premises,][ situated][ at] D.No.8/347-K-L,AnantapurRoadRevenueWardNo.8GootyMunicipality Area, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District,A.P which property is near to D.No/Plot No.8/367-A into rule framewithoutaccording any time for submitting, reply, without conducting any physicalinspection of the Petitioners premises, without passing any speaking orwell-reasoned order, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of naturaljustice. Contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh MunicipalitiesActi1965, A.P Metropolitan Region and Urban Development AuthoritiesAct,2016' and A.P Building Rules, 2017', besides being[violation]of petitionersrights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the ConstitutionofIndia and consequently set-aside thesame. lA NO: 1 OF 202fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3not to take any coercivemeasures including that of demolition of Petitioners buildingsituated at‘D.No.8/347-K-L, Anantapur Road, Revenue Ward No.‘8 Gooty MunicipalityArea, Gooty Municipality Limits, Gooty, AnanthapurDistrict, A.Pwhichproperty is near to D.No/Plot No.8/367-A. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. K. VISWANATH NAIDUCounsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s.V. SIREESHA RANI,SCFOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010061992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI[3333](Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHAWRIT PETITION NO: 3519/2025 Between;Sri Vaddi Nagendra...PETITIONERANDThe State of Andhra Pradesh and others...RESPONDENT(S)Counsel for the Petitioner:1.M KVISWANATH NAIDUCounsel for the Respondent(S):1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV APThe Court made the following: -z' ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the[Constitution][ of][ India] seeking the following relief: ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s.V. SIREESHA RANI,SCFOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010061992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI[3333](Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHAWRIT PETITION NO: 3519/2025 Between;Sri Vaddi Nagendra...PETITIONERANDThe State of Andhra Pradesh and others...RESPONDENT(S)Counsel for the Petitioner:1.M KVISWANATH NAIDUCounsel for the Respondent(S):1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV APThe Court made the following: -z' ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the[Constitution][ of][ India] seeking the following relief: to pass an order or orders or direction more particuiarly[one][ in]thenatureof awritof mandamusquestioningtheactionofrespondent No.2 in issuing impugned confirmation order[vide][ Notice]NO.02/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 31.12.2024, received on[20.01.2025,]byconfirmingtheshow-causenoticeissuedvideNoticeNO.02/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 23.12.2024 received on[20.01.2025]and Notice No.3/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 31.12.2024 receivedon20.01.2025 by confirming the show-cause notice issued[vide][ Notice]NO.3/1156/GY/UC/2022 dated 23.12.2024 received on 20.01.2025and serving both the provisionai orders and confirmationorderscoilectively and thereby respectively directing the[Petitioner][ herein][ to]bring down the entire building consisting in the premises,[situated][ at]D.No.8/347-K-L,Anantapur Road,RevenueWardNo.8,GootyMunicipality Area,Gooty Municipality Limits,Gooty,AnanthapurDistrict, A.P. which property is near to D.No/Plot[No.8/367-A][ into rule]frame,without according any timefor submitting reply,withoutconducting any physical inspectionof thePetitioner’s[premises,]without passing any speaking or well-reasoned order,[as][ arbitrary,]illegal,in violation of principles of natural justice.[Contrary][ to][ the]provisionsofAndhraPradeshMunicipalitiesAct,1965,A.P.Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities[Act,][ 2016]and A.P. Building Rules, 2017’, besides being violation[of][ petitioners]rightsguaranteedunderArt.14,19(1)(g)and 300AoftheConstitution of India and consequently set-aside the[same....”] 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows; a) The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.02 cents,[an][ extent][ of]Ac.0.04 cents, an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.378-B[of][ Gooty,][ Gooty]Municipality Limits, Gooty, Ananthapur District from[its][ lawful][ owners][ through]varioussale deeds. As such,thepetitioneris the absoluteownerandof land in total extent of 391.32 Sq.yards in Sy.No.378-B.possessor b) The petitioner with an intention to construct and develop the abovesaid property made applications to the 2"^^ respondent on 26.05.2017 and29.05.2017 for an extent of Ac.0.04 cents and Ac.0.02 cents respectively forgrant of permission for construction of residential building. The 2""* respondentgranted permission vide 1156/0126/B/GYMC/ATPR/2017, dated 26.05.2017and 1156/0027/B/GYMC/ATPR/2017, dated 29.05.2017 andthepetitionerherein had not taken any permission for the balance extent of Ac.0.02 centsbut the petitioner constructed a single building by combiningall the abovementioned properties.After obtaining the obtaining the building permission,the petitioner started construction of proposed building in accordance with thebuilding plan granted in the year 2017 and thereafter due to noise and dustpollution, the petitioner approached the 2^"^ respondent and orally sought forconversion of the residential building permission to commercial building andalso requested the respondents to regularize an extent of Ac.0.02 cents andaccordingly, the respondents agreed for the same and imposed commercialtax and since then the petitioner is running hospital and has been payingtaxes to the respondents. c)Whilethematterbeingso.ProvisionalOrderNoticedated23.12.2024 wasissuedtothepetitionerdirectinghimtostopfurtherconstructionforthwithandshowsufficientcauseastowhythedeviation/violation construction should not be removed/altered or pulled downwithin seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, furtheraction will be taken as per law. The said Provisional Notice was served on the petitioner on 20.01.2025 along with Confirmation Order[dated][ 31.12.2024,]wherein the petitioner was directed to bring down the[construction]into therule frame within seven days from the date of receipt[of][ the][ notice.] d) The Confirmation Order is under challenge on the[ground][ that][ before]passing the said Confirmation Order, the 2^*^ respondent[failed][ to][ conduct][ any]survey by giving a notice to the petitioner and also[affording][ an][ opportunity][ of]hearing to him. 3.Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitioner andlearnedGovernmentPleader for Municipal Corporation for respondent No.1andMs.V.SireeshaRani, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2[and][ 3.]Pleader for Municipal Corporation for respondent No.1andMs.V.SireeshaRani, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2[and][ 3.] 4.Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned[Standing][ Counsel]appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has furnished[a][ copy][ of][ instructions][ of]the Commissioner, GootyMunicipality, whereinitisstatedthat thethenCommissioner,GootypreviouslyissuedProvisionalOrderNoticedated23.12.2022 under Sections 217, 228(1) & 228(2) of A.P.[Municipalities] Act1965 to the petitioner directing him to stop further[construction][ forthwith][ and]show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation[constructions][ should]not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date ofreceipt of this notice, failing which,it will be treated[as a][ continuous][ and]intentional offence and further action will be taken as per the provisions laiddown under Sections 217, 218(3) of APM Act 1965. The[petitioner][ neither]followed the directions mentionedin the ProvisionalNoticenor submittedappearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has furnished[a][ copy][ of][ instructions][ of]the Commissioner, GootyMunicipality, whereinitisstatedthat thethenCommissioner,GootypreviouslyissuedProvisionalOrderNoticedated23.12.2022 under Sections 217, 228(1) & 228(2) of A.P.[Municipalities] Act1965 to the petitioner directing him to stop further[construction][ forthwith][ and]show sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation[constructions][ should]not be removed/altered or pulled down within seven days from the date ofreceipt of this notice, failing which,it will be treated[as a][ continuous][ and]intentional offence and further action will be taken as per the provisions laiddown under Sections 217, 218(3) of APM Act 1965. The[petitioner][ neither]followed the directions mentionedin the ProvisionalNoticenor submitted sufficient cause as to why the deviation/violation constructions should not beremoved. Therefore, the impugned Confirmation Order was passed. 5.Itis further statedthatall the building owners havesubmittedarepresentation on 27.01.2025 to the notices served on them requesting togrant timeto furnishthedetails as per the notices,tosecurerelevantdocuments and give detailedreply and also to giveanopportunityforpersonal hearing. However, the said representations were rejected by the 2ndrespondent on 04.02.2025 on the ground the petitioner has failed to submitanexplanation to the provisional notice as well as failed to attend for personalhearing.representation on 27.01.2025 to the notices served on them requesting togrant timeto furnishthedetails as per the notices,tosecurerelevantdocuments and give detailedreply and also to giveanopportunityforpersonal hearing. However, the said representations were rejected by the 2ndrespondent on 04.02.2025 on the ground the petitioner has failed to submitanexplanation to the provisional notice as well as failed to attend for personalhearing. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of thepetitioner was rejected on 04.02.2025 and the same was not served upon thepetitioner by the time of filing of the present writ petition. As such he could notchallenge the rejection order. However, as no opportunity was given to thepetitioner either to submit an explanation or to submit the relevant documentsto prove his title over the said property, learned counsel for the petitionerrequested to permit the petitioner to submit his explanation and thereafter, therespondents may consider the same.petitioner was rejected on 04.02.2025 and the same was not served upon thepetitioner by the time of filing of the present writ petition. As such he could notchallenge the rejection order. However, as no opportunity was given to thepetitioner either to submit an explanation or to submit the relevant documentsto prove his title over the said property, learned counsel for the petitionerrequested to permit the petitioner to submit his explanation and thereafter, therespondents may consider the same. 7.In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitionerISi:permitted to submit his explanation within a period of two (2) weeks from thedate of receipt of this order enclosing all the necessary documents in supportof his claim to the above said Provisional Order dated 23.12.2024. On receipt of the same, the 2respondentis directed to proceed with the necessaryenquiry in pursuance of the above said Provisional[Order][ dated][ 23.12.2024]byhearingallthepartiesconcernedincludingthepetitioner anduponverification of the records and the subject building, appropriate decision shallbe taken onits own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within aperiod of six (6) weeks thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shallnot be any coercive steps. 8.In view of the same, the Confirmation Order Notice[dated][ 31.12.2024]and rejection order dated 04.02.2025 are set aside.and rejection order dated 04.02.2025 are set aside. 9.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed[of.][ No][ costs.] Miscellaneous petitions pending,if any,in this Writ[Petition][ shall][ stand] closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAODEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipality Administration[and][ Urban]Development(MA and UD), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat,Amaravathi, Velagapudi.Development(MA and UD), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat,Amaravathi, Velagapudi. 2. The Commissioner, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur[District,][ A.P.] 3. The Town Planning Section, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur[District,][ A.P.] 4. One CC to Sri M. K. Viswanath Naidu, Advocate 5. One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani, SC for Municipalities 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Three CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDERfofANOH;^^WP.No.3519 Of 2025*0 5 MAK 2025ml*&^. Current aecuoni DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS