IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14710 OF 2019 'a s>- Between: Galla Venkata Ramana, S/o. G. Sanyasi Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.3-285/5, Gallavanipalem Village, Aganampudi Post, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Zone-V, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 4. Challa Krishna Murthy, S/o. Somaiah, Aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.23-27-9, Pidimamba Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 5. Smt. Matta Sobha, W/o. M.V.K. Mohan Rao, Aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No.31-29-23, Sivalayam Street, Vadlapudi, Visakhapatnam. ...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 the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 failed to act on my representations dated 26.08.2019, 23.01.2019 and 12.11.2018 in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents I granted vide which the was to cancel permission B.A.Nd.4086/1O69/B/Z5/KEM/2O18 dated 17.05.2018. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 cancel to respondents the direct pleased B.A.NO.1086/1069/B/Z5/KEM/2018 dated 17.05.2018 by acting upon my to 23.01.2019 and 12.11.2018 in representations dated 26.08.2019 accordance with the Provisions of the GHMC Act, pending disposal of the above writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI A. S. C. BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPALCORPORATIONS) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4:Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following; ORDER 1 APHC010296732019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14710/2019 Between; ...PETITIONER Galla Venkata Ramana, AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2.G RAMA GOPAL 3.Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA 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: to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 failed to act on the petitioner’s representations dated 26.08.2019, 23.01.2019 and 12.11.2018 in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the permission which was granted vide B.A.No.1086/1069/B/Z5/KEM/2018 dated 17.05.2018 ” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property in an extent of Ac.0-33 cents situated in Sy.No.108/24 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal. The said property was succeeded by the petitioner from his father. While the matter being so, when the petitioner intended to construct a compound wall around his land to avoid the encroachment, the respondents No.4 and 5 along with other persons obstructed him and tried to encroach upon the said property. As such, the petitioner made a complaint to the concerned police, but they did not act upon it. Thereupon, the petitioner along with his mother and other family members filed O.S.No.7 of 2015 and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2015 granting permanent injunction restraining the respondents No.4 and 5, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Aggrieved by the said judgment, unofficial respondents No.4 and 5 filed A.S.No.34 of 2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, at 3 Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam stating as if they have purchased the land to an extent of 733 sq.yards from the lawful owner and alleging that they have obtained permission for construction, obtained status quo orders dated 29.10.2018 from the Hon’ble Court in CMA No.24 of 2015. It was brought to the notice of the respondents No.1 and 2 that status quo order in respect of the land was granted in an appeal filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and requested to cancel the permission. However, unofficial respondentNos.4 and 5 tried to encroach upon the property by taking advantage of permission which was granted in their favour. b) Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.08.2018 to the respondent authorities explaining all the above facts. On his complaint, a reply was given on 23.01.2019 stating that the construction was stopped. But, the petitioner, on verification, found that the construction was proceeded by respondent Nos.4 and 5. When the petitioner approached the respondent authorities, they informed that the file is not being traced. On the other hand, the 2'"'^ respondent is acting hand in glove with the respondents No.4 and 5 to commence the construction. The fact remains, on the rd representation made by the petitioner, the 1®‘ respondent sent the 3 respondent i.e., AGP, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam on 23.08.2019, enquired into the matter, and informed that the approval was cancelled. But, inspite of the same, as the respondents were proclaiming that the approval is in existence. the petitioner requested to issue appropriate information with regard to cancellation proceedings. But, so far no such proceedings were furnished. 4 The petitioner made a complaint No.8895 of 2018 by enclosing the settlement fair adangal, copy of the adangal 10(B) Register, receipts of property tax, Court judgment and status quo order. In spite of repeated requests and reminders, the respondents failed to take into consideration the representations dated 26.08.2019, 23.01.2019 and 12.11.2018, though there is a status quo order passed by the competent Civil Court in respect of the lands subsisting. Apart from that, there is a decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner. If the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are allowed to make construction, it would be contrary to the order passed by the competent Civil Court. As no action has been initiated on the representation made by the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter duly enclosing a copy of the endorsement issued in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner on 26.08.2019, 23.01.2019 and 12.11.2018, informing the petitioner that in 3. O.S.No.7 of 2015 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, already temporary injunction was granted and action would be initiated in accordance with law. But, however, it is also their case that unofficial respondents herein have already preferred an appeal against O.S.No.7 of 2015 vide A.S.No.34 of 2018 and the same is pending for adjudication on the file of Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka. The unofficial respondent No.5 filed counter stating that the building /4. permission vide B.A.No.1086/1069/B/Z5/KEM/2018, dated 17.05.2018 is issued to construct a buildina in the land of K.Kumara Subrahmanyam, to an 5 extent of 366 Sq.yards purchased under sale deed dated 10.10.1984 and S.L.N.V.Ch.Shankar Murali Krishna to an extent of 34 Sq.yards vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.2017 and approved the building permission for construction of a building in the name of the developer M/s.Sri Vamsi Constructions represented by Smt.Matta Sobha/5th respondent herein. It is stated that the owners of the land were not arrayed as parties to this writ petition. The construction of the building is also completed in terms of building permission dated 17.05.2018. It is further stated that the respondent No.5 is not aware about the alleged representations submitted by the petitioner on 26.08.2019, 23.01.2019 and 12.11.2018 to the Municipal Corporation. In view of the above circumstances, no illegality can be attributed to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation according to the building permission th dated 17.05.2018. The owners of the land owners with whom the 5 respondent have entered into the Development Agreement dated 06.11.2017 are not parties before the Civil Courts referred by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable for want of proper and necessary parties and as such requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The petitioner’s grievance is that when the petitioner intended to construct a compound wall around his land to avoid encroachments, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with some other persons have obstructed the petitioner and tried to encroach upon his schedule property. As such, the petitioner has filed a police complaint and also filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.7 of 2015 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein and 6 their men from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which was decreed in favour of the petitioneron 25.09.2015 granting permanent injunction to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed A.S.No.34 of 2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, wherein they succeeded in obtaining status quo on 29.10.2018. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the jurisdictional civil Court, vide order dated 29.10.2018, has directed the parties to maintain status quo, the respondent Nos.4 and 5, taking advantage of the building permission granted in their favour, are trying to interfere into the petitioner’s property: as such the petitioner has submitted representations to the respondent authorities requesting to cancel the said building permission granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. In pursuance of which, respondents No.1 and 2 have issued an endorsement dated 04.09.2019 informing the petitioner that in view of the permanent injunction granted by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka in O.S.No.7 of 2015 on 25.09.2018, the petitioner has to approach the concerned Court and based on the further orders passed by the Court, if any. the authorities would take appropriate action. It is also the fact that challenging the said injunction order, the unofficial respondents have preferred A.S.No.34 of 2018, in which, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct both the parties to maintain status-quo and the same is pending for adjudication before the learned 13*'^ Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 7 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the matter is presently seized by the Civil Court i.e., the learned IS'” Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in A.S.No.34 of 2018. 7. In view of the same, this Court feels it to submit a fresh representation, if at all, he has of A.S.No. 34 of 2018 before the learned 13*^^ Additional Visakhapatnam. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand appropriate to direct the petitioner any grievance after disposal District Judge, 8. closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Zone-V, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri A.S. C. Bose (SC for Municipal Corporations)[OP UC] 6. One CC to Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate[OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri G. Rama Gopal, Advocate[OPUC] 8. Two CC’s to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 9. Three CD Copies. To, ssb HIGH COURT \ DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER andh^ WP.No.14710of 2019 2 I MAR 2025 ^ . Current iiecuon DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS