APHC010251772014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34301/2014 Between: Padala Jagannadha Naidu, Srikakulam ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secretary Municipal Admin Hyderabad Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders in Rc.No.11693/2007/I- 1/Ann-II/10 dated 05.07.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent without even issuing any prior / show-cause notice to the petitioner or to his vendor as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and to consequently set aside the same and to pass.” 2. On 17.11.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “…In this view of the matter, Status quo in all respects shall be maintained by both sides in respect of the subject land. The petitioner shall not make any alienation or create any third party interest in respect to the land purchased by him.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned standing Counsel on oral instructions has submitted that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit vide O.S.No.1450 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 for the plot No.110 in Sy.No.1 part carved from Sy.No.180 of Yendada Village, Chinagadili Mandal, 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 petitioner, 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 vide O.S.No.1450 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. 3 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.11693/2007/I-1/Ann-II/10, dated 05.07.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.1450 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 by this Court in the present writ petition. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.02.2025 Gss