1 APHC010119832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6820/2025 Between: Peketi Venkata Ramana ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6820 OF 2025 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in not taking any action against the construction being made by the Respondent No.4 in spite of Endorsement Dated 07.02.2025 vide RC No.VSP202501272820 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner claims to have purchased 732 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.132/14A, Tungalam Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, under two registered Sale Deed Document Nos. 551/2008 and 552 of 2008. The vendors of the Petitioner i.e., Gopisetti Hemanth Kumar and Gopisetti Bhaskar Anil Kumar had acquired title under a registered Gift Deed vide Document No.3996 of 2006 executed by their grandfather late Gopisetti Apparao. The Petitioner had applied for building permission in the year 2009 and on inspection of the officials of the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner was informed that the land is falling not in Sy.No.132/14A, but in Sy.No.132/18A and 20 as per the boundaries in the sale deed. In an attempt to protect the title, the Petitioner purchased 968 Sq.Yards under registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.668/2009 dated 07.04.2009. 3 3. The Petitioner also claims to have purchased an extent of 131/P under Agreement of Sale-cum-Power of Attorney vide Document No.2694 of 2008, dated 10.09.2008 from Akkireddy Kondala Rao, Akkireddy Srinivasa Rao and Smt. Akhireddy Satya. The Petitioner also claims to have purchased an extent of 132 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.131/p under registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.2695/2008 and a building plan was approved vide B.A.No.10064/2009/ACP-V for an extent of 3907 Sq.Yards. The Petitioner though was granted building permission but could not proceed with the construction due to financial constraints. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.4 started construction in the entire land admeasuring 5,800 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.131/P, 127/3B and 132/19 and on enquiry, it was revealed that Respondent No.4 obtained registered Sale Deed from Gopisetti Adhinarayana, Bobbili Apparao and L. Surya Chandra Vara Prasad under Document No.4568/2016 and 2057 of 2018 for an extent of 884 Sq.yards in Sy.No.127/3B and 1194 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.127/3B, together 2078 Sq.Yards. 5. Though the title in favour of the Respondent No.4 is only 2078 Sq.Yards, the Respondent No.2 had issued building permission for an extent of 5800 Sq.Yards and it was in that context, the Petitioner submitted 4 his grievance to the Respondent No.2 informing about false documents created by the Respondent No.4 and the irregularities in issuing the building permission. Pursuant to the objections raised by the Petitioner, an Endorsement was issued vide RC.No.VSP202501272820, dated 07.02.2025, wherein it is mentioned that status of the file of the Respondent No.4 is under short fall consideration and construction has been stopped. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that Stop Work Order was issued on 10.01.2025 vide Letter No.SWO/1086/2024/2017 to the Respondent No.4 to comply with certain short fall of the documents. Learned Standing Counsel submits that as on date, no construction is going on. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.4 is yet to submit the documents as mentioned in the Shortfall Notice. 7. In view of the submissions made by the Standing Counsel that no construction is going on, the grievance of the Petitioner is redressed and the Writ Petition can be disposed of leaving it open to the Petitioner to re-agitate the issue in the event of any violation of Stop Work Order and he is at liberty to raise all objections before the Respondent No.2. The 5 Respondent No.2 shall duly consider the objections raised by the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.03.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 6820 of 2025 Date: 21.03.2025 eha U