WP/30018/2026 of Shaik Shabbir Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 October 2026

ORDER:-

Heard Sri Omkar D, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Municipality.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Proceedings/Confirmation Notice in A.K.No. / B.A.No.06/04/2026/G1, dated 28.09.2026 under Section 228 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, requiring the petitioner to remove the encroachments within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. It is contended that the said notice is a gross violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his explanation or objections to the said impugned proceedings. It is further contended that the impugned proceedings have been passed based on the proceedings of the Tahsildar.

4. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has placed before the Court a copy of instructions received by him in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect that on 26.09.2026, the Tahsildar informed the 2nd respondent that the subject land falls within the limits of Kanigiri

Municipality and that no pattas nor possessory rights had been granted to anyone in respect of the subject survey numbers. In view of the above and in compliance with the directions of the High Court, notices were issued to the concerned persons in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the notices were issued and seven (7) days' time was provided to submit objections and if any supporting documents. Without complying with the said notices, the petitioner approached this Court alleging the procedure contemplated under law was violated.

6. Considered the submissions.

7. Based on the report of the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent came to conclusion that the subject structure is unauthorized. It is incumbent on the respondent Commissioner to comply with the principles of natural justice and provisions of law as envisaged in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, before proposing the coercive measures.

8. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings issued would violate principles of natural justice and are contrary to the procedure under law. In the light of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to consider the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and liberty is granted to the petitioner to file objections to the notice dated 28.09.2026. On

filing of such objections, the 2nd respondent Municipality is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall submit the objections within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till passing of final orders, the respondents shall not initiate any coercive measures, pursuant to the impugned proceedings.

9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 13.10.2026 ANI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO:30018 of 2026

Dated:13.10.2026

ANI