. i a APHC010283742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0E0 0 TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 14388 OF 2024 Between: Potnuru Kameswaramma, W/o. Harinadha Rao, Aged 66, D.No. 24-MO, Indra Nagar, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District. R/o. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Dept of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Srikakulam Urban Development Authority SUDA, Rep. by its Vice Chairperson, SUDA office, Peddapadu, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Vice Chairperson, The Srikakulam Urban Development Authority (SUDA), SUDA office, Peddapadu, Pradesh. 4. The Town Planning Officer, The Srikakulam Urban Development Authority (SUDA), SUDA office, Peddapadu, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Narasnnapeta Grama Panchayat, Rep.by its Panchayat Secretary, Srikakulam. 6. The Executive Officer Panchayat Secretary, Gottipalli Revenue Village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. Secretariat Srikakulam District, Andhra Srikakulam District, 7. The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 9. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in insisting for production of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 6th respondent, Panchayat Secretary, for granting of building permission for construction of permanent structures in the land of the petitioner situated in Sy. No. 219/1B1 of Gottipalli Revenue Village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District contrary to law, illegal discriminatory and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to grant building permission for construction of permanent structures in the land of the petitioner situated in Sy. No. 219/1B1 of Gottipalli Revenue Village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, without insisting for No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 6th and to other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. as respondent. 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider for grant of building permission for construction of permanent structures in the land of the petitioner situated Sy. No. 219/1B1 of Gottipalli Revenue Village, Srikakulam District, without insisting for production of (NOC) pending disposal of the writ petition. in Narasannapeta Mandal, No Objection Certificate lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner herein to file Reply to the Counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent herein, in the above Writ Petition by granting leave in the interest of justice. to lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner herein to file Reply to the Counter affidavit of the 5th Respondent herein, in the above Writ Petition by granting leave in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POSANI AKASH Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI J DILEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 and 6: SRI YARRAGUNTLA. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR ZPP, MPP AND GP Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9:GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010283742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 14388/2024 Between: 1.POTNURU KAMESWARAMMA, W/0. HARINADHA RAO, AGED 66, R/0. D.NO. 24-MO, INDRA NAGAR SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. NARASANNAPETA, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, PRINCIPAL REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SECRETARIATBUILDINGS, 2.THE SRIKAKULAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SUDA, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRPERSON, SUDA OFFICE, PEDDAPADU, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE VICE CHAIRPERSON, THE SRIKAKULAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUDA), SUDA OFFICE, PEDDAPADU, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THE SRIKAKULAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUDA), SUDA OFFICE, PEDDAPADU, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5.THE NARASNNAPETA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SRIKAKULAM. 6.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GOTTIPALLI REVENUE VILLAGE, NARASANNAPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 2 DISTRICT. 7.THE DISTRICT. 8.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DISTRICT. 9.THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM NARASANNAPETA MANDAL ...RESPONDENT(S); Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.POSANI AKASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.SOMA RAJU YELISETTI 3.GP FOR REVENUE 4.Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel ForZilla Praja Parishads.Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following: 3 Order: The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring 1717 square yards situated in Sy. No. 219/1B1 (Old Sy. No. 125/05) of Gottipalli Revenue Village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. The petitioner purchased the property in the year 2005 from his vendor. Subsequently, in the year 2021, the petitioner gifted a portion of the said property to his sons through registered documents. It is submitted that the petitioner's vendor had initially obtained permission for the construction of a compound wall in the year 1989, and such permission was accorded by the O'*" respondent. Thereafter, in 2005, the petitioner applied for permission for construction in a part of the property, and permission was again accorded by the 5*^" respondent as per the petitioner’s proposal. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner intended to construct in the remaining vacant land and accordingly sought permission in the year 2013. However, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are now demanding that the petitioner furnish a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 5**^ respondent. In this regard, the concerned revenue authorities have addressed various correspondences to the 7‘^ respondent, duly informing the 7‘^ respondent that the petitioner’s case deserves to be considered for grant of NOC. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Mandal Praja Parishad, represented by the Mandal Development Officer, filed O.S. Nos.126/1990 and cancellation of the registered sale deeds of the vendors 127/1990 seeking a declaration of of the petitioner. Attention of the Court is drawn to the observations of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, in the common judgment dated 30.11.1994, wherein it was held that the plaintiff had failed to produce Additional any reliable, cogent, and convincing oral or documentary evidence to establish either title or possession over the plaint schedule property. The said suits were accordingly dismissed. It is also submitted that none of the respondents have filed any appeals against the said judgment, and as such, the judgment has attained finality. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that, there is absolutely no necessity for the 5^'^ respondent to issue any NOC in the facts of the present case, as admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the title, ownership, or possession of the petitioner's property. 5. In such circumstances, the repeated demands from respondent Nos. 2 to 4, calling upon the petitioner to furnish an NOC from the 5*^ respondent, who has no connection with the property of the petitioner, are highly irrational, arbitrary, and illegal. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been struggling since the year 2013 and has been made to run from pillar to post to obtain permission in respect of his own land. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2'"'* respondent submits that a detailed counter has been filed and that the respondent has raised an 5 objection claiming ownership of the land, and requested the 2"'^ respondent to cancel the building permission by addressing a letter dated 16.10.2022 in that regard. It is also submitted that there is a serious dispute with regard to the survey number, and that the Panchayat Raj Department is claiming ownership of the land in Sy. No.219/1B1, and that the issue of ownershiphas to be decided by the Revenue Department. It is further submitted that, without obtaining an NOG from the respondent, permission cannot be accorded to the petitioner. same 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner had obtained plan approvals and a permit to construct 10 shops portion of the subject land, and that such permission was obtained by quoting an incorrect survey number. It is submitted that the petitioner referred to Sy. No. 125, which is situated approximately 2 kilometers away from the actual construction site, and that the permission was obtained by employingdubious methods. That apart, it is submitted that there is a travellers’ bungalow located on the said property, which is in a dilapidated condition, and that the Zilla Parishad and Grama Panchayat are bound to protect Government lands in the village. in a 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 7 to 9 submits that the land admeasuring 1717 square yards located in Sy. No.219/1B1 is classified as Gramakantam land, and that the petitioner has encroached upon Government land where a Travellers Bungalow is situated in a dilapidated condition. It is also submitted that the 6 Gramakantam land is under the control and possession of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Srikakulam, and that the property vests in the State. 9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. The suits filed seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner’s vendor were dismissed vide judgment dated 30.11.1994, th which refers to Sy. No.219. The 5 respondent, vide Proceedings No. 135/2005 issued in the month of July 2013, addressed the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, duly informing that the petitioner is in possession of land admeasuring 1717 square yards and that the petitioner has also been paying taxes for the constructed shops. The report of the Tahsildar, Narasannapeta, dated 08.08.2013, addressed to the 7‘^ respondent, also requested the Collector to issue an 11. NOC in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land in Sy. No.219/IB admeasuring 1717 square yards. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, also issued proceedings dated 11.08.2013 to the 7th respondent, duly informing that the petitioner had constructed a shopping complex opposite the Panchayat office, and that part of the remaining land is presently vacant. It was further informed that the shopping complex was assessed for payment of property tax. Subsequently, the Tahsildar, on 12.06.2020, issued proceedings vide Rc. NO.122/2020/B to the Collector (7^*^ respondent), relegating the matter afresh to the respondent for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. 7 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the suits filed by the Mandal Praja Parishad, represented by the Mandal Development Officer, Narasannapeta, were dismissed as title could not be established before the civil Court. As for the stand taken by the respondent and the 2""^ respondent that there is a cloud over the title to the property and 12. that the petitioner’s title is being doubted, the same would have to be adjudicated before the appropriate civil Court. The title to any property cannot be determined by the revenue authorities without completion of trial before the competent civil Court. 13. In the present case, the Mandal Praja Parishad could not establish any title or interest over the schedule property for the Court to pass a decree of cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants therein. Neither the Panchayat Raj Department nor the 5 respondent, or any of the other respondents, has raised any claim over the property or filed any appeal against the judgment of the Court. In such circumstances, any claim over the property and the denial of issuance of an NOC to the petitioner cannot be considered a valid objection. The 5^*^ respondent, having issued permission for construction of a compound 14. wall in the year 1989 and, thereafter, for construction of a shopping complex on a part of the land in the year 2005, cannot now, all of a sudden, start claiming the property as belonging to the State or the Zilla Parishad. 15. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed, as the issue of title or any claim of title over the property by the respondent authorities was already considered by this Court in W.P. No.15555 of 2008. The learned Single Judge, in the said writ petition, held that the judgment and decree in O.S. Nos. 126 and 127 of 1990 is binding on the respondents and that they cannot claim any title over the property in the petitioner’s possession. It is also relevant to note that the said order has attained finality, and no writ appeal was filed challenging the said observations. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAFi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Dept of Municipal Administration Development, State of Andhra and Urban Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Vice Chairperson, Srikakulam Urban SUDA office, Peddapadu, Srikakulam District Development Authority SUDA, Andhra Pradesh. Urban Development Authority Srikakulam District, Andhra 3. The Vice Chairperson, The Srikakulam (SUDA), SUDA office, Peddapadu, Pradesh. 4. The Town Planning Officer, ^ Authority (SUDA), SUDA office, Andhra Pradesh. The Srikakulam Urban Development Peddapadu, Srikakulam District • 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Narasnnapeta Grama Panchayat, Srikakulam. 6. The Executive Officer Panchayat Secretary, Gottipalli Revenue Village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. 7. The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 9. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. 10. One CC to Sri. Posani Akash Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. J Dileep Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Soma Raju Yelisetti Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 11. 12. 13. [OUT] 14. Two CCs to GP for Municipal admin and Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri Y Koteswara Rao, SC for ZPP, MPP and GP 15. [OPUC] 16. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 14388 OF 2024 W 2' JUL 2025 p A'uirantSMtax^ Co ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS