APHC010128112015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 11726/2015 Between: Bonila Hari Krishna, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M S R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 226 of India declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd respondent in R.C. No. No.6669/2006/1- 1/Ann. 11/5 Dt. 5.7.2014 as violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, illegal and void.” 2. On 23.04.2015, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “…For the reasons stated in the said order, Status quo in all respects shall be maintained by both sides in respect of the subject-land. There shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, but however, it shall not preclude the 2nd respondent from initiating civil proceedings for cancellation of registration of the subject plots before the jurisdictional civil Court.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Sri. V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned standing Counsel, on instructions has submitted that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit vide O.S.No.370 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners herein for the land in Plot No.28 in Sy.No.34 and 35 part of Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District only. 5. As per the instructions of the learned standing Counsel, it is clear that even without cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners, the respondents have cancelled the allotment which in fact should have been done after cancellation of the sale deed. However, in view of the fact that the respondents have already filed civil Suit O.S.No.370 of 2024 seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners, this Court is of 3 the opinion that the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 cancelling the allotment is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.6669/2006/1-1/Ann.II/5, dated 05.07.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.370 of 2024 O.S.No.370 of 2024. The concerned Civil Court is directed to decide the civil suit pending before it on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed this Court in the present writ petition. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 29.01.2025 Gss