WP/25777/2026 of C.N. Sreeramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 September 2026

1. C.N. SREERAMULU,, S/O. LATE CHINNA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.NO.4-252-B, PENUGONDA ROAD, MADAKASIRA TOWN, SRI STAYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT -515301

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AT VELAGAUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237.

2. THE MADAKASIRA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, AT MADAKASIRA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515301.

3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, MADAKASIRA MUNICIPALITY, MADAKASIRA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515301.

4. AZAMUTHULLA DUBBE SAB, S/O. C. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RIO. D.NO.2-113, HINDUPUR ROAD, REVENUE WARD.NO.4, MADAKASIRA TOWN, SRI STAYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515301.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P NARAHARI BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. The petitioner's grievance in the instant writ petition is against the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in failing to stop the unauthorized, illegal construction by the 4th respondent in respect of the subject property, admeasuring Ac.0.19 cents in Sy.No.531-2 and Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.530-3 situated at Madakasira Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No.4 does not have any right over the subject property. Despite submitting a complaint to Respondent No.2, in the said regard the 2nd respondent did not take any action on the said complaint.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that respondent No.3 conducted an inspection at the subject land on 05.09.2026. Having noticed that the subject construction being carried out without obtaining permission from the competent authority, respondent No.3 directed the respondent No.4 to stop the illegal construction. Accordingly, a notice dated

05.09.2026 was issued to respondent No.4 under Sections 88(1), 89(1 & 2), and 90(1) of the APMR & UDA Act, 2016. In response to the said notice, no objections were filed by the unofficial respondent. Consequently, a final confirmation order was issued vide proceedings dated 16.09.2026. At present, no such construction is being carried on.

5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, as the grievance of the petitioner stands addressed by the notices issued by the Corporation. However, pursuant to the final confirmation order, respondent Municipality shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 2 months, from the date of receipt of the notice after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the 4th respondent.

6. Accordingly, 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: 18.09.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 25777 OF 2026

Dated: 18.09.2026 BSK