M/S. IKON ISI PROJECTS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- APMC Act, 1955 ss. 452(1), 461(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Be that as it may, considering the submissions the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside, leaving it open for the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and take necessary action in accordance with law.
- Para 44. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dated 21.07.2025 KGM ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 4 359 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO.15572 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 KGM
Judgment
Cause title
1. M/S. IKON ISI PROJECTS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. K. SUNIL NAIDU., S/O. K. VENKATA RAO., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS., R/O. JAGANNADHAPURAM., 45-35-51, VISAKHAPATNAM. AKKAYYAPALEM, AND ...PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN AREA DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER ZONELL, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICERR ZONELL, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM.. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: 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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in trying to demolish the building constructed at Plot No. 10 situated at Sy.No. 144/P and 144/3P of Yendada Village in the layout of Santhinikethan Co-op. House Building Society as arbitrary, illegal, improper and incorrect and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein not to demolish the constructions at Plot No. 10 situated at Sy.No. 144/p and 144/3P of Yendada Village in the layout of Santhinikethan Co-op. House Building Society and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondents herein not to demolish the constructions, constructed at Plot No. 10 situated at Sy.No. 144/P & 144/3P of Yendada Village in the layout of Santhinikethan Co-op. House Building Society pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass ; 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO.15572 of 2025
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 12.09.2024, wherein the 2nd respondent had issued a notice under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of APMC Act,
1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice was not addressed to the petitioner and it was addressed to the vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner has purchased the property on 30.10.2021 and thereafter obtained permission for construction of additional floors, the permission was sanctioned to the petitioner on 25.02.2022 and occupancy certificate is issued to the petitioner on 01.03.2023. It is submitted that as the 2nd respondent did not serve any notice to the petitioner, he was unable to submit any reply and for non-submission of reply by the petitioner, the respondent is now holding out threats of demolition.
Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to submit relevant documents and get the name of the petitioner mutated in the municipal records. It is submitted that as per the records maintained in the office of 2nd respondent, the notices were issued to the then landlord as the petitioners name is yet to be mutated.
Be that as it may, considering the submissions the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside, leaving it open for the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and take necessary action in accordance with law.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dated 21.07.2025 KGM ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 4 359 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO.15572 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 KGM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; APMC Act, 1955 — ss. 452(1), 461(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Jul 2025. The bench was HARINATH N.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.