IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22018 of 2003 Between: Siravalli Gopal Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy, R/o.4-1-280, Andal Street, Ramagiri, Nalgonda. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipality, Rep. by Commissioner, Nalgonda. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda Mandal & District. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ specially Writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned proceedings No. 9/Uc/2003 dt.19-9-2003 of 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and subsequent memo No. B/5540/2003 dt.4-10-2003 of 2nd respondent as illegal without jurisdiction by allowing the petitioner to proceed with the construction of premises No. 5-4-65, Near Clock Tower, Nalgonda Town & District in pursuance of sanctioned pan permission letter no.G1/107/2003 dt.18-9-2003 of 1st respondent by declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the construction of petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed questioning the validity of the order, dated 19-09-2003, passed in proceedings No.9/UC/2003 by the first respondent – Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality and further Memo, dated 04-10- 2003, issued in proceedings No.B/5540/03 by the second respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda. The petitioner claims ownership and possession with regard to property covered by premises No.5-4-65 in an area of 2500 square yards situated near Clock Tower, Nalgonda Town, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 30-12-2002, from its earlier vendor. On the application submitted by the petitioner for making constructions, permission is granted by the Municipality, Nalgonda, on 18-09-2003. Firstly, an order, dated 19-09-2003, is passed by the first respondent/Commissioner for removal of structures on the ground that constructions are made contrary to sanctioned plan. The said order is passed in exercise of powers under Section 228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. Thereafter, a further Memo, dated 04-10-2003, is issued by the second respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer issued in proceedings No.B/5540/03 stating that Minority Commission of A.P. has forwarded a complaint petition in which it is alleged that properties/lands belong to Baptist Christians Association have been grabbed and as such, the petitioner was directed to submit a copy of the approved lay out plan and municipal permission relating to construction of the shopping complex within three days. In this Writ Petition it is a case of the petitioner that the said orders are passed without authority and jurisdiction. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, dated 19-09-2003, for removal of structures, is contrary to provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act. Further, it is submitted that as the petitioner has purchased the property by a registered sale deed and constructions are being made in accordance with the sanctioned plan approved by the competent authority under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer has no authority to interfere with the constructions on the ground that there was a complaint forwarded by the A.P. State Minorities Commission. with regard to their properties/lands. This Writ Petition was admitted on 20-10-2003 and on the same date interim orders also passed in W.P.M.P.No.27485 of 2003 by issuing directions not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner. The said order passed by this Court continued all along and though the Writ petition is of the year 2003, no counter- affidavit is filed, either by the Municipality or by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality. In this case it is to be noted that the notice issued by the first respondent/Municipality is under Section 228 (1) of the A.P. Municipalities Act. The order of removal of structures cannot be passed straightaway, without passing an order as contemplated under Section 228 (3) of the Act, after affording an opportunity and hearing objections as required under Section 228 (2) of the A.P. Municipalities Act. From a perusal of the impugned order, the petitioner was directed for removal of structures straightaway by passing an order under Section 228 (1) of the Act. Though it is further averred in the affidavit that the order, dated 04- 10-2003, is also passed without any authority of law, there is no counter-affidavit on behalf of the Mandal Revenue Officer to justify the reasons for passing of the impugned order. When the petitioner has purchased the property by a registered sale deed and constructions are taken up pursuant to permission granted by the local authority, there appears no reason for the Mandal Revenue Officer to pass the impugned order, merely because a general complaint is filed with regard to properties/lands belong to Baptist Christians Association. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that no valid reason has been assigned for issuing the impugned order. It is open for the Municipal Authorities to verify whether the constructions are made by the petitioner on the approved layout and whether they are covered by permission, but it is not for the Mandal Revenue Officer to verify the said aspects, merely on the complaint filed by Baptist Christians Association claiming the properties/lands. It is stated that the petitioner has already filed his explanation on 20-09-2003 with reference to notice, dated 19-09-2003, issued by the first respondent, but no further orders are passed till now. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing the impugned order, dated 19-09-2003, passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.9/UC/2003 and the impugned Memo, dated 04-10-2003, issued by the second respondent in proceedings No.B/5540/03. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 21st July, 2009. skmr