APHC010302582014 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: 36629/2014 Between: Konala Leelavathi, E.g. Dist & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Prl Secy Maud Dept Hyd Ano and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V SATISH 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: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in Rc.No.6232/2009/11/ANNIII/9 dated 21.08.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent during subsistence of interim orders granted by this Hon ble Court in against show cause notice dated 23.09.2013 in W.P.No.30176 of 2013 is illegal arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and to consequently set aside the same and to pass such other or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. On 01.12.2014, 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. There shall be an interim suspension of the impugned order. However, Status quo in all respects shall be maintained by the petitioner as well as 2nd respondent in respect of the subject land and the petitioner shall not make any alienation or create any third party interest in respect of the land purchased by her. 3. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, 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 Suit O.S.No.34 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein to the extent Plot Nos.112, & 212 in Sy.No.34 & 35 of Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District and plot No.104 in Sy.No.180 carved 1P of Yendada 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.34 of 2016 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.6232/2009/1-1/ANN-III/9 dated 21.08.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.34 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District 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 279 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36629/2014 Date: 23.01.2025 ANS