APHC010162162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8290/2025 Between: Villuri Venkata Ramana Murthy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8290/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.250/2024/JA dated 07.03.2025 ordering a confidential enquiry / investigation into the bona vide activities of the petitioner including the operation of a printing press and their action in venturing into determination of the rights and title of the petitioner over the land to an extent of 903.41 Sq.yds in Sy.No.113 of Marripalem Village along with the premises bearing Door No.58-14-109/5 at Block No.113/A VUDA Layout, Revenue Ward No.42, Visakhapatnam and the consequential notice issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.282/2025/A dated 19.03.2025 under Section 10(1) of the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 as being unjust, vengeful, mala fide, colourable exercise of power without authority, illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.250/2024/JA dated 07.03.2025 along with the consequential notice issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.282/2025/A dated 19.03.2025 under Section 10(1) of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and to pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of 903.41 Sq.yds in Sy.No.113 of Marripalem Village having acquired the same by way of registered sale deed dated 18.01.2004 vide Doc No.206 of 2004. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land and thereafter the petitioner herein also made constructions at the subject land after due regularization permission by the competent civic bodies i.e., GVMC, Visakhapatnam as well as VUDA. While things stood thus, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein issued an impugned notice dated 07.03.2025 and 09.03.2025 alleging that the petitioner herein has occupied an excess land other than the land which was accrued by way of purchase and thereby directing the petitioner to participate in enquiry and survey, to be conducted as per Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein are not the competent authorities to decide whether the petitioner had occupied an excess land other than the land purchased by him or not and the same has to be decided either by the VUDA (now VMRDA) or the Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, since the subject land would fall within the jurisdiction of GVMC. He further submits that once the land is converted as urban land, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are no way concerned with the subject land. Hence, proceedings dated 07.03.2025 and notice dated 09.03.2025 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is contrary to law and are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that whether the petitioner has occupied an excess land other than the land purchased by him, to be determined by the competent authority. Accordingly, respondent No.3 while issuing proceedings dated 07.03.2025 pursuant to the complaints received by him forwarded the same to the respondent No.4 as well as the Zonal Commissioner, Visakhapatnam for enquiry due to the fact that the said land was situated in the Municipal urban area. As such, the Zonal Commissioner, Zone V, Visakhapatnam is the competent authority for such verification or for determination of the land held by the petitioner. Therefore, the matter can be remanded to the competent authority to proceed further with the enquiry and to determine rights of the petitioner pursuant to the acquisition made by the petitioner as well as the complaints submitted by the third parties. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court has observed that admittedly, the subject land is situated within the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits and the said land was acquired by the petitioner from the VUDA through a registered sale deed dated 18.01.2004 and constructions were also made by the petitioner at the subject land and the same were also regularized as per the regularization proceedings issued by the competent civic body i.e., Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Further, the allegation of occupation of excess land by the petitioner should be determined by the competent authority i.e., Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation or VMRDA only, certainly would not by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein. Even though if any complaints were received by respondent No.3 being revenue authority, since the subject land was already converted as urban area, he has to forward the same to the competent authority for further enquiry and for necessary action but not to the respondent No.4. It is further observed that even though the said proceedings were forwarded to the Zonal Commissioner, Visakhapatnam for enquiry, and appropriate action, but so far, Zonal Commissioner, Zone V, Visakhapatnam has not yet proceeded further pursuant to the proceedings dated 07.03.2025 issued by respondent No.3 and the same is pending for consideration. 7. It is clear and categorical that the proceedings issued by respondent No.3, in relation to the complaints ordering an enquiry in respect of the subject land to 4th respondent herein is out of jurisdiction. Further the respondent nos.3 & 4 concerned as mentioned above proceeded further pursuant to the complaints of the third parties submitted to them is out of their jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned proceedings dated 07.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 are liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings dated 07.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. However, the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam or VMRDA is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law in respect of the subject property, after having verification of third party complaints and proceedings of the 3rd respondent, if they felt necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 01.04.2025 BSP 67 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8290 of 2025 01.04.2025 BSP