IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos: 17373 of 2023 and 13019 of 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 17373 OF 2023 Between: Sanapala Rohini, W/o Sanapala Late Kannayya, Hindu, Aged 65 years, Occ: House wife, R/o D No 39-16-37, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Greater Visakhapatnam Muncipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Zone-5, Gyanapuram, Visakhapatnam. Deputy City Planner, Zone-5, G.V.M.C, Gyanapuram, Visakhapatnam. Smt Duppala Sailaja, W/o G Ravi Kumar Hindu Aged 38 years Occ House wife R/o D No 39-25-13/2 Seethanna Gardens, Madhava Dhara, Visakhapatnam Duppala Suryaprakash Venkata rao. So D. Narasinga Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 Years, residing at D/o 39-25-13/2, Seethanna gardens, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...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 or order orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 3'"'^ and 4*^ respondents to implement the STOP WORK ORDER vide letter No.no. SWO/1086286/2022 dt 06.09.2022 issued to the respondents 5 and 6 and subsequently direct the 3rd respondent to prevent the unofficial respondent 5 and 6 from making further construction in the Sy no.2/1B, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 202.? 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 3'"'^ respondent to prevent the unofficial respondent 5 and 6 from making further construction in the Sy no. 2/IB, Madhavadhara vuda colony. revenue ward no.39. Visakhapatnam in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above Petition. Gopalpatnam mandalam. Writ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJESH MATCHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC for MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.6; WRIT PETITION NO: 13019 OF 2024 Between: D n’o M Is Kumar, Aged 38 years, Housewife, R/o .No.39-25-13/2, Seethanna Gardens, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. 2. Duppaia Suryaprakash Venkata Rao, S/o. D. Narasinqa Rao aoed 4n Sha^naS:""^^-^^-^^'^' GardenTMad^havfd1?art° ...Petitioners AND C-P°-«on, its Planner Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Zone-5, Gyanapuram, Visakhapatnam. 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administrahon AND Urban Development, Secretariat, Velag^iDudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. 6. Sanapala Rohini, W/o Sanapala Late Kannayya, Hindu, Aged 65 years Occ: House wife, R/o D No 39-16-37, Madhavadhara, VisakhapaS ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter No.SWO/1086286/2 022 No.SWO/1086286/2022, dated 06.09.2022 and Letter may one in the dated 06.09.2022 respectively issued to the Petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and without jurisdiction, consequently to set aside / quash the Letter No.SWO/1086286/2022, dated 06.09.2022 and Letter No.SWO/1086286/2022, dated 06.09.2022 respectively, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to suspend the operation of the No.SWO/1086286/2022 may be proceedings vide Letter and Letter dated 06.09.2022 No.SWO/1086286/2022, dated 06.09.2022 issued to the petitioners respectively, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI V.V.RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following common order: 1 APHC010261222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 1 tZvklWl [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NOS:17373 OF 2023 AND 13019 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 17373/2023 Between; ...PETITIONER Sanapala Rohini AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAJESH MATCHA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.VVRAVI PRASAD 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 4. GRAMA GOPAL WRIT PETITION NO: 13019/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Duppala Sailaja and another AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and others 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) \ The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER: Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions are claiming right over the same property, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;- W.P.No.17373 of 2023 “....to issue a writ or order orders or directions more particulariy one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to implement the STOP WORK ORDER vide letter No.SWO/1086286/2022 dated 06.09.2022 issued to the respondents No. 5 and 6 and subsequently direct respondent No.3 to prevent the unofficial respondents No. 5 and 6 from making further construction in the Sy.No.2/1B....” W.P.No.13019 of 2024 “....to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter No.SWO/1086286/2022, dated 06.09.2022 and Letter No.SWO/1086286/2022, dated 06.09.2022 respectively issued to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and without jurisdiction, consequently to set aside/quash the Letter No.SWO/1086286/2022 dated 06.09.2022 and Letter No.SWO/1086286/2022, dated 06.09.2022 respectively....’’ 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case in W.P.No. 17373 of 2023 are as follows: a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of land to an extent of Ac.6.30 cents in Sy.No.2/1B (old Sy.No.47) situated at Madhavadhara Vuda colony, 4 Revenue Ward No.39, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam having acquired the same from her mother-in-law by name Sanapala Bhoodevi, who herself acquired the subject property vide registered Document No.2066/1953. b) While that being so, the unofficial respondents No.5 and 6 herein (the petitioners in W.P.No.13019 of 2024) have unathorizedly obtained building permissions vide B.A.No.1086/B/Z5/l\/IRA/2022, dated 13.04.2022 and B.A.No.1086/1881/B/Z5/MRA/2022, dated 12.04.2022 respectively to an extent of 2403 Sq.yards in Sy.No.2/1B. Aggrieved by the said action of the unofficial respondents, the petitioner herein filed a Spandana application on 22.08.2022. Thereafter, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation conducted an enquiry and directed the unofficial respondents herein to stop the further construction in the subject property and issued ‘Stop Work Order’ on 06.09.2022 to them. Pursuant thereto, the unofficial respondents have stopped the construction for all these days, but recently due to the transfer of the Municipal Commissioner, they have again started the illegal construction. Hence, the writ petition is filed. 4. On the other hand, the unofficial respondents in W.P.No. 17373 of 2023 have preferred W.P.No.13019 of 2024, challenging the issuance of Stop Work Orders against them. Their case is as follows; (a) They are the absolute owners of house ptots bearing No.38, in an extent of 200 Sq.yards, and Pint No.36. in an extent of 200 Sq.yards, situated 5 in Sy.no.2/1B (old Sy.No.47/A) of Madhavadhara Village, by virtue of two registered Gift Settlement deeds bearing document No.3300/2006 dated 22.12.2006 and 3299/2006 22.12.2006 executed by their mother Smt.D.Aruna Kumari, who got the same from her parents towards Pasupukumkuma. Pursuant to their applications seeking building permission for construction of residential houses in the said plots, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has granted building permission vide B.A.No.1086/B/Z5/MRA/ 2022, dated 13.04.2022 and B.A.No. 1086/1881/B/ Z5/MRA/2022, dated 12.04.2022 respectively, pursuant to which they started construction. While the construction is at the stage of first slab, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has issued Stop Work Orders dated 06.09.2022, which signed by the 4^*^ respondent i.e.. Assistant City Planner, GVMC, Zone-5, purportedly by exercising the power under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. It is their grievance that the issuance of impugned notices by the 4‘^ respondent is in collusion with the unofficial respondent No.6 (petitioner in W.P.No.17373 of 2023) without any authority of law or jurisdiction. In fact, when the unofficial respondent No.6 has earlier made a “Spandana complaint” raising an unhealthy litigation about petitioners’ title over the subject properties, the 4*^ respondent issued reply dated 11.08.2022, stating that the petitioners were raising construction after obtaining building permission and there are no unauthorized construction. However, again on 22.05.2022, the unofficial respondent No.6 made another ‘Spandana complaint’ alleging that were (b) 6 there is an encroachment, and exerted pressure on the GVMC authorities by influencing the political power. Then, the 4*^ respondent issued impugned “Stop Work Orders” dated 06.09.2022 to the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the construction of their residential houses is stalled from 06.09.2022 till date without there being any enquiry conducted by the respondent authorities, c) It is further contended that the 2'^'^ petitioner herein filed O.S.No.23 of 2023 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction against the unofficial respondent No.6 herein and others restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property bearing plot No.49 in Sy.No.2/1B, Madhavadhara Village and the said suit was decreed vide Judgment and decree dated 11.07.2023. No appeal was preferred by the defendants therein challenging said Judgment and decree. Therefore, the same has become final. Hence, there is no justification to the GVMC to continue the Stop Work Order dated 06.09.2022. 5. For the purpose of convenience W.P.No.13019 of 2024 is taken as lead case and the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the said writ petition. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, filed 6. counter, stating that though building permissions were issued in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the applications submitted by them, but however, subsequently, complaints were received from the unofficial respondent No.6, raising title dispute over the subject property. Thereupon, the respondent authorities have inspected the site and issued Stop Work Orders. It is further 7 Stated that the grant of building permissions does not confirm title over the property and the respondent authorities are not competent to adjudicate the question of title. So far as the contention of the petitioners that no further enquiry has been conducted after issuance of the Stop Work Orders is concerned, it is stated by the Corporation that the unofficial respondent No.6 f filed O.S.No.294 of 2022 before the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the 1®* petitioner and others and, therefore, since the matter is sub judice, the RDO has issued an endorsement on 25.01.2023, stating that further action shall be taken depending upon the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.294 of 2022 pending between the parties. It is further stated that as on date, no construction activity is taking place in the subject land. 'H V From the above, it is clear that there is a title dispute between the 7. parties and a civil suit in O.S.No.294 of 2022 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed by the unofficial respondent No.6 is pending. It is also evident that though building permissions have been granted in favour of the petitioners, subsequently as it has come to light that title dispute is pending between the parties with regard to the subject property, the authorities have issued Stop Work Orders directing the petitioners to stop further constructions in the subject property. It is to be noted that the Stop Work Orders were issued as long back as in the year 2022 and three years have lapsed and there is no interim order by this Court suspending the said orders. 8 8. In view of the above circumstances, since the civil suit in O.S.No.294 of 2022 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is pending between the parties, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions directing the authorities to take appropriate action depending upon outcome of the said suit. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretai^^ Development, State of Andhra Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal ’ , Visakhapatnam. The Zonal Commissioner Corporation, Zone-5, Gyanapuram Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Visakhapatnam. 4 The Deputy City Plani^r Corporation, Zone-5, Gyanapuram Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal ’ , Visakhapatnam. 5 The Assistant City Planner Corporation Zone-5, Gyanapuram 6. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Rajesh Matcha, Advocate [OPUC] 8 One CC to Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 9, one CC to Sri A S C Bose, SC for Municipai Corporations [OPUC] Two CCS to GP for Municipal Administration AND Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies 10. 11. RAM HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.17373 of 2023 & 13019 of 2024 I" 0 2 APR 20?5 g Current Section ^ DISPOSING BOTH THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS