APHC010141212022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO WRIT PETITION NO: 8089/2022 Between: 1. K SOWRI, S/O LATE DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.36-45-4/A, SY NO.34/2 AND 35 GANGANNA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER VISAKHAPATNAM 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER ZONEV, DIVISION NO.55 GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VISAKHAPATNAM Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J DILEEP KUMAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 8089 and 24359 of 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 8089/2022 K SOWRI, S/O LATE DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DOOR 4/A, SY NO.34/2 AND 35 GANGANNA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER VISAKHAPATNAM OFFICER ZONEV, DIVISION NO.55 GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] K SOWRI, S/O LATE DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DOOR 4/A, SY NO.34/2 AND 35 GANGANNA NAGAR, ...PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY OFFICER ZONEV, DIVISION NO.55 GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV WRIT PETITION NO: 24359/2022 Between: 1. K. SATYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE KODELA APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, GANGANNA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM,-08. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (M)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 27.06.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2022. 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, ZONE-IV, GNANAPURAM, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, ZONE-IV, GNANAPURAM, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, NAD KOTHA ROAD, GOPALAPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 6. K SOURY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PLOT NO 14, GOPALAPATNAM COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, GOPALAPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SARASWATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC) 3 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. P RAJKUMAR 4. GP FOR REVENUE 4 The Court made the following Common Order: The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not proceeding with any construction activity as of now. The writ petitions were filed when the petitioners admitted to having undertaken certain construction activity, and the interference of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was challenged by filing these writ petitions. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that, in pursuance of the petitioners encroaching on the buffer zone, necessary action was taken by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not undertaken any construction activity and also places on record the written instructions submitted by the Assistant City Planner, Zone-V, GVMC/2nd respondent. 3. Recording the submissions, these writ petitions are closed making it clear to the petitioners not to encroach on the buffer zone. It is also made clear to the respondents that, for any further action against the petitioners, the respondents shall have to follow the due process of law. The petitioners are at liberty to submit any revised building plan without encroaching upon or occupying the buffer zone, and on such submission, the respondents shall duly consider the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 02.09.2025 PNS 5