APHC010192152014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 40803/2014 Between: Ms/. Osi Consulting Private Limited and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the decision and the consequential action of the respondent in canceling the allotment of plots through the proceedings Rc.No.695/2010/11/Ann 111/19 Dated 09/09/2014 as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice.” 2. On 31.12.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “The validity of an order dated 05.07.2014 passed by the Vice-Chairman of the 2nd respondent is challenged in this writ petition. The learned Standing counsel has not been able to show any provision in the statute i.e., The A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 empowering the Vice-Chairman to pass the said order. In this view of the matter, 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. The petitioner shall not make any alienation or create any third party in respect of the land purchased by him.” 3. Heard Smt.V.Umadevi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel submitted written instructions, wherein it is stated that the respondents have already filed Civil SuitO.S.No.75 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein to the extent Plot No.92, 196 in Sy.No.34 and 35 of Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District only. 5. On perusal of the said instructions submitted by 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.75 of 2015 seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of 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 R.C.No.695/2010/1-1/ANN-I/19 dated09.09.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.75 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 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: 23.01.2025 ANS 221 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 40803/2014 Date: 23.01.2025 ANS