APHC010121242016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26576/2016 Between: T. Padmavathi ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings of the 2"d respondent dated 01.02.2016 in Roc.No: 2109/2013/G1 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules framed there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently suspend proceedings of 2" respondent dated 01.02.2016 in Roc.No: 2109/2013/G1 and direct rd respondent to decide petitioner's application for building permission in house site admeasuring 0.04cents in DNo: 16/141 in 16th Ward, Survey No: 299/4, Masapeta, Kadapa Town and District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case…” 2. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the house site property admeasuring 0.04 cents in D.No.16/141 in 16th wards, Sy.No.299/4, Masapeta, Kadapa town and district. While so, a third party namely A.C. Subbanna filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.855 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent herein claiming that the aforementioned site belongs to the 2nd respondent corporation and that the petitioner herein was interfering with the possession of A.C. Subbanna. The said suit was dismissed aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed an appeal vide A.S.No.94 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kadapa, which was allowed. 3. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein has filed a suit vide O.S.no.652 of 2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking permanent injunction which was also dismissed and the same was further confirmed in an appeal before the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa vide A.S.No.51 of 2013. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has submitted an application on 02.11.2015 to the 2nd respondent seeking permission for construction of building for which the 2nd respondent had addressed the impugned letter dated 01.02.2016 directing the petitioner not to make any construction and that if any construction is made, the 2nd respondent would lodge police complaint. Aggrieved by the said action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.08.2016, this Court has suspended the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 01.02.2016 and has directed the 2nd respondent to decide petitioner’s application for building permission in house site admeasuring 0.04 cents in D.No.16/11 in 16th ward, Sy.No.299/4, Masapeta, Kadapa town and district. 6. The petitioner herein is the rightful and sole owner of a house site property measuring 0.04 cents, located at D.No.16/141 in 16th Ward, Sy.No.299/4, Masapeta, Kadapa town and district and a third party one A.C. Subbanna, filed a civil suit (O.S.No.855 of 2004) before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, claiming that the property in question belonged to the 2nd respondent corporation and alleged that the petitioner was interfering with the possession. The said suit was dismissed, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed an appeal (A.S.No.94 of 2006) before the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, which was. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has filed O.S.No.652 of 2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge against the petitioner herein which was dismissed by observing as under: “…the record reveals that the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of schedule land as on the date of suit. Therefore it is held that plaintiff failed to prove its possession over schedule site as on the date of suit. Therefore it is not entitled for permanent injunction.” The aforesaid decision was also upheld by the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa in appeal filed by the 2nd respondent vide A.S.No.51 of 2013. 7. The 2nd respondent, vide the impugned endorsement has stated that the Municipal Standing Counsel, Kadapa in his legal opinion in O.S.No.652 of 2009 stated that the petitioner herein is not entitled for sanction of approved plan for any sought of constructions in subject property till she proves her title over the said property, which cannot be sustained since the suit O.S.No.652 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner was dismissed on 28.03.2013 and its dismissal was also confirmed on 02.09.2015 in A.S.No.51 of 2013 by the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent dated 01.02.2016 is liable to be set-aside. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 01.02.2016 in Roc.No.2109/2013/G1 are set- aside. However, the petitioner herein is at liberty to submit fresh application to the 2nd respondent seeking permission for construction of house in her site admeasuring 0.04 cents in D.No.16/141 in 16th wards, Sy.No.299/4, Masapeta, Kadapa town and district. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:13.02.2025 Gss