Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/34184/2016 of Aravapalli Ramesh @ Ramesh babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal on 19 July 2026
Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010427772016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO:
HN, J
W.P.No.34184_2016
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010427772016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 34184/2016
Between:
1. ARAVAPALLI RAMESH @ RAMESH BABU, S/O LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 6-47, NIDAMANURU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
2. ARAVAPALLI PUJITHA, D/O RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 6-47, NIDAMANURU
VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI
VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE GRAMPANCHAYAT, NIDAMANURU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA
RURAL MANDAI, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
HN, J
W.P.No.34184_2016
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toIssue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 and 3
and their officials in trying to demolish the Petitioners building in the land admeasuring 409.51 Sq. Yrds situated in door No. 6-118/G, R.S. No. 154/13
of Nidamanuru Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14,21, and 300-A of the constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents and their officials not to demolish the Petitioners building and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 42171 OF 2016
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased DIRECT the Respondents not to demolish the Petitioners building in the land admeasuring 409.51 Sq. Yrds situated in door No. 6-118/G, R.S. No. 154/13
of Nidamanuru Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A S C BOSE
2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
3. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)
4. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
HN, J
W.P.No.34184_2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. The present writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in trying to demolish the petitioner’s building.
2. It is submitted that respondents has filed a counter affidavit stating that the writ petition has been filed merely on an apprehension that the respondents would demolish the building without following the principles of natural justice.
3. It is stated in the counter that a provisional order under Sections 115(3) and 115(4) of the APCRDA Act, is required to be issued to the owner of the property in respect of the unauthorized construction. It is further stated that, after granting reasonable time to the owner for submission of an explanation and upon consideration of the same, if the Commissioner is not satisfied with the explanation, the Commissioner of respondent No.2 may confirm the provisional order. Thereafter, a final order in terms of Sections 115(3) and 115(4) of the APCRDA Act, and under Section 115(4), the Commissioner is empowered to demolish the unauthorized construction.
4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Government has delegated the powers of the CRDA to the Municipalities/Corporations/Gram Panchayat. As such, the Gram Panchayat has also been delegated the power of demolition under Section 115 of the APCRDA Act.
HN, J W.P.No.34184_2016
5. In view of the above, the interim order dated 30.09.2016 stands modified to the extent that the respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter take further action strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:20.07.2026 NKA
Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
HN, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 34184 of 2016 Date: 20.07.2026
NKA