APHC010180902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 9299 & 9319 OF 2025 Between: 1. KONA JAGANMOHINI, W/O. KONA AYYAPPANAIDU., AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS., R/O. E-91, PANCHAVATI COLONY, NEAR AKKIREDDYPALEM., BHPV POST., VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS., VELAGAPUDI., GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPTANAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER., 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ZONE-LL. MADHURAWADA., VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. M/S SRI SAI BUILDERS, , REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER., SMT. VILLA NAGA LAKSHMI., W/O. V. SRINIVASA RAO., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS., HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE. AT D.NO. 58-16- 54/1., GROUND FLOOR., SRI SAI HOMES. SHANTINAGAR., NAD KOTHA ROAD., VISAKHAPATNAM. 2 6. SMT MARNEEDI VIJAYALAKSHMI, , W/O. E. PARDHASARADHI. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS., R/O. D.NO. 50-40-1., FLAT NO. S-1(3). SRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA RESIDENCY., P AND T COLONY., SEETHAMMADHARA., VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. SMT M JAYA SATYAVATHI DEVI, W/O. M. VEMKANNA DORA. AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS., R/O. D.NO. 50-40-1., FLAT NO. S-1(3). SRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA RESIDENCY., P AND T COLONY., SEETHAMMADHARA., VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP WRIT PETITION NO: 9319 OF 2025 Between: 1. SRI BHAWARLAL SHARMS, S/O. PRABHATI LAI SHARMA. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS., R/O. D.NO. 32-26-30, NETAJI NAGAR., GEETH SANGEETH THEATRE ROAD., VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SMT. PRATIMA DEVI SHARMA,, W/O. BHAWARLAL SHARMA. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS., ., R/O. D.NO. 32-26-30, NETAJI NAGAR., GEETH SANGEETH THEATRE ROAD., VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS., VELAGAPUDI., GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPTANAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER., 3 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ZONE-LL. MADHURAWADA., VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. M/S SRI SAI BUILDERS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER., SMT. VILLA NAGA LAKSHMI., W/O. V. SRINIVASA RAO., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS., HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE. AT D.NO. 58-16-54/1., GROUND FLOOR., SRI SAI HOMES., SHANTINAGAR., NAD KOTHA ROAD., VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. SMT MARNEEDI VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. E. PARDHASARADHI., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS., R/O. D.NO. 50-40-1., FLAT NO. S-1(3). SRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA RESIDENCY., P AND T COLONY., SEETHAMMADHARA., VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. SMT M JAYA SATYAVATHI DEVI, W/O. M. VEMKANNA DORA., AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS., R/O. D.NO. 50-40-1., FLAT NO. S-1(3). SRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA RESIDENCY., P AND T COLONY., SEETHAMMADHARA., VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR 4 The Court made the following ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, Sri Srikanth Reddy, Ld. Government Pleader for MAUD and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporations and Sri A. Vamsi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents in both the Writ Petitions. 2. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that during the pendency of Suits filed by the Writ Petitioners bearing O.S.No.96 of 2019 (in W.P.No.9299 of 2025) and O.S.No.419 of 2022 (in W.P.No.9319 of 2025) seeking declaration of their right and title and consequential permanent injunction on the file of VII Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, there was an Interim Order of temporary injunction that was granted by the trial Court. The said Interim Order was subsisting till the Covid period and the same was not extended for some time. It is further submitted that by taking undue advantage of non-extension of the Interim Order during the COVID period, the sole Defendant had sold away the subject land to the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would also submit that upon gaining knowledge that the vendor of the Unofficial Respondents had sold away the subject property to the Unofficial Respondents herein, the Writ Petitioners have taken steps to implead the Unofficial Respondents herein as party Defendants in the pending suits. He would submit that the Interlocutory Application seeking impleadment has already been allowed and the Unofficial Respondents are arrayed as Defendants in the Suit. He would also submit that the Plaintiffs/Writ Petitioners have already filed Interlocutory Applications in both the suits seeking Temporary Injunction, which are now under consideration before the trial Court. 5 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the disputes subsisting between the Writ Petitioners and the Unofficial Respondents will have to be adjudicated by the trail Court namely the VII Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam. It also transpires from the record that vide Order dated 09.04.2025, my predecessor had restrained the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 from proceeding with further construction until further Orders and this Interim Order is still subsisting. 5. In order to protect the interest of all the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to continue the same Interim Order dated 09.04.2025 passed by my predecessor, till the disposal of the Interlocutory Applications pending before the trial Judge with a view to get the disputes resolved earlier. The Ld. trial Judge is requested to take up the pending Interlocutory Applications seeking Interim Injunction on a day to day basis and dispose of the same by passing Speaking Orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of uploading of these Orders on the web-site of this Court, keeping in mind the intervening summer recess. 6. There shall be a direction to the Writ Petitioners and the Unofficial Respondents not to seek any adjournment with a further direction to all the parties to cooperate with the Ld. trial Judge for timely disposal of the Interlocutory Applications. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merit and the trial Judge shall not be bound by any of the observations made by this Court in this Writ Petition. 7. Before parting with these cases, it would become necessary to refer to Para Nos. 4 to 6 of the Order passed by this Court dated 30.03.2026, wherein, this Court had directed the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development to file Affidavit by weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the suggestions of this Court. 8. In compliance with this Order, Sri Srikanth Reddy, Ld. Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development representing the 6 Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development has drawn the attention of this Court to the Affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary dated 08.04.2026. The relevant portion of the Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder: “4. In pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court, I respectfully submit that the suggestion of the Hon'ble High Court to introduce a specific column in the format of the Building Permit Order and AP Building Rules, 2017 is reviewed and it is to submit that, after Rule number 3(10)(d)(xxiii), a Sub Clause in AP Building Rules, 2017 may be added duly amending the AP Building Rules i.e. whether the subject property is free from any litigation or otherwise and also at such other Annexures. 5. Further, it is submitted that the said provision will be enabled during the submission of the application form in the online portal and also as a specific point may be added after condition number 34 of Building Permit Order. The enabling of such provision poses advantages which are as follows: "Advantages: 1. Enhanced Transparency: The proposed disclosure would ensure greater transparency in the application process by mandating applicants to declare the litigation status of the property at the outset. 2. Informed Decision-Making: It would enable the sanctioning authority to take a more informed decision while processing building applications, particularly in cases where disputes may have a bearing on ownership or development rights. 3. Accountability of Applicants: The requirement of a formal declaration would place responsibility on the applicant, thereby discouraging suppression of material facts and reducing instances of misrepresentation. 4. Reduction in Future Disputes: Such disclosure may help in minimizing future legal complications arising after the grant of building permission, thereby protecting public interest.” 9. The above extract would indicate that the Government desires to initiate the process of incorporating the necessary clauses seeking declaration from every Applicant as regards the pendency or otherwise of any cases relating to 7 the subject property. Let the changes in the Application format be done as expeditiously as possible. 10. With these observations and directions, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed, as indicated above. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.04.2026 MNR 8 120 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.9299 & 9319 OF 2025 Dt: 09.04.2026 9 MNR