IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32480 OF 2015 Between: Akula Narasamma, W/o. AKula Durvasa Rao, Aged 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Nuziveedu Village & Mandal, Kothapeta, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. Nuziveedu Municipality, Rep. by its. Commissioner, Nuziveedu town and Mandal, Krishna District. 3. Town & Planning Officer, Nuziveedu, Municipality, Nuziveedu Town and Mandal, Krishna District. 4. Smt. Malisetti Dorasani, W/o. Nagendra Rao,, Aged 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Kothapeta, Nuzvid Town and Marcia!, Krishna District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring inaction on the part of 2nd respondent on the petitioner representation dated 07.09.2015 submitted for refusal of building plan permission to the 4*^ respondent for an extent of 238.33 square yards in Survey No.747/2 situated in Nuzvid Town for showing wrong boundaries in her application for building permission by illegal including her property, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920, contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 respondent to consider her said representation/objections by giving me ‘ opportunity to participate in the enquiry in connection therewith. nd I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 41980 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2 nd respondent to consider the petitioner representation/objections dated 7.9.2015 by giving her opportunity to participate in the enquiry proposed to be conducted by the 2"*^ respondent on the application of 4**^ respondent for building permission in compliance of order of this Hon'ble court dated 3.8.2015 in WP.No.24101 of 2015 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU . Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents: SMT V.SIREESHA RANI, SC for MUNICIPALITIES/ The Court made the following order: 1 ^ APHC010177262015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32480/2015 Between: ...PETITIONER Akula Narasamma AND State of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, ...RESPONDENT(S) Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and 3 others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2.GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3.PGANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: / 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “....fo issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring inaction on the part of 2”'^ respondent on the petitioner representation dated 07.09.2015 submitted for refusal of building plan permission to the 4th respondent for an extent of 238.33 square yards in Survey No.747/2 situated in Nuzvid Town for showing wrong boundaries in petitioner’s application for building permission by illegally including her property, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920 contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2"'' respondent to consider petitioner’s representation/objections by giving opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry in connection therewith ....” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 2. and 3. // Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 furnished a copy of instructions of the Commissioner, Nuzvid Municipality, Nuzvid/respondent No.2, 31.12.2024, wherein it is stated that the respondents No.2 and 3 have not granted any building plan permission to unofficial respondent No.4 herein for construction of a building. Upon physical verification, it was found that the boundaries are not tallying on the western boundary oU^^i^deni 3. dated No.4 and 3 the eastern boundary of the petitioner in Sy.No.747. Accordingly, the petitioner was also informed through endorsement ROC No.1028/2015-G1, dated 22.09.2015. 4. In view of the above instructions, it is clear that basing on the representation made by the petitioner, on proper verification, the respondents No.2 and 3 have not granted any building permission to respondent No.4 on the ground that boundaries were not tallying on the western boundary of respondent No.4 and the said fact was also informed to the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, and as such, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- J SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ECTI^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. One CC to Sri Namavarapu Chanti Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Smt V.Sireesha Rani, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 and75^^ I 2 0 MAR 2025 Current oeciion . ^ ORDER fi9. WP.No.32480 of 2015 DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS