APHC010307162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) II MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15444 OF 2024 Between: M/s. MSS Developers, rep. by its Managing Partner D.Shiva Bhaskar Reddy s/o D Siva Rami Reddy, aged 36 years, r/o Plot No.1. Balaji Complex, II Floor, Silpa Birla Compound, Kurnool-I Town, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Kurnool Urban Development Authority, By its Vice Chairman, Near Montessori School, A-CAMP, Kurnool Town. Kurnool. Kurnool District. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 1. 2. 3. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to release the plots in B Block under Mortgage Deed bearing no. 3540 of 2021 dated 04.03.2021 even after completion of the construction of deviation only on the the file of the 111 sanctioned plan without violation or 16.05.2024 and 21.06.2024, as the houses per the being illegal, arbitrary notices dt. 02.05.2024 unjust and unconstitutional. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 ^ ,• n 1-^1 rPC craving that in the circumstances stated .J«e: ,n:::port ot the petition, the 2nd respondent herein to torthwrth re direct the . 3540 of 2021 in the interest of justice. under Mortgage Deed bearing no disposal of the main Writ Petition, in ; SRI J JANAKIRANIl REDDY aont No 3- SRI POTHANl VENGALA REDDY the Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner; Counsel for (SC FOR NI.CORPORATION IN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR muncipal adnin urban DEV Respondent No.2; SRI SOMA RAJU YELISETTI Counsel for the The Court made the following order; % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010307162024 MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15444/2024 Between: 1.M S S DEVELOPERS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER D.SHIVA BHASKAR REDDY S/0 D SIVA RAMI REDDY, AGED 36 YEARS, R/0 PLOT N0.1. BALAJI COMPLEX, II FLOOR, SILPA BIRLA COMPOUND KURNOOL-I TOWN, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AND 2.THE KURNOOL URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, NEAR MONTESSORI SCHOOL, A- KURNOOL TOWN. KURNOOL. KURNOOL CAMP, DISTRICT. 3.THE KURNOOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY 2 ITS COMMISSIONER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S); 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to release the plots in B Block under Mortgage Deed bearing no. 3540 of 2021 dated 04.03.2021 even after completion of the construction of the houses per the sanctioned plan without violation or deviation only on the ground of pendency of the civil suit O.S.No. 734 if 2023 on the file of the III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool despite giving clarification through legal notices dt. 2.5.2024, 16.5.2024 and 21.06.2024, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case 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 may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to forthwith release the plots in 'B' Block under Mortgage Deed bearing no. 3540 of 2021 04.03.2021, pending disposal of the main dated Writ Petition, in the interest of justice to pass such 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 Pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein (Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 15444 of 2024) to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.JJANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3.SOMARAJU YELISETTI The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15444 of 2024 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in refusing to release the plots in ‘B’ Block under mortgage deed bearing No.3540 of 2021 dated 04.03.2021 even though the construction of the houses was made by the Petitioner in accordance with the sanctioned plan without any violation or deviation. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as 2. follows: The Petitioner had purchased an extent of Ac.9.50 cents in Sy.Nos.49A, 50, 62, 63 and 63-1 situated at Dupadu Village, Kurnool District from various individuals through independent registered sale deeds. Out of the said total extent of land, the Petitioner laid layouts in two Blocks i.e ‘A’ Block and ‘B’ Block in extent of Ac.3.54 cents and Ac.3.64 cents respectively. It is stated that the layout was approved by the 2"'* Respondent- Authority. The Petitioner had mortgaged plot Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22 and 23 of an extent of 1000.28 square meters in ‘A’ an 2 i Block under registered mortgage deed vide document No. 12588/2020. As regards ‘B’ Block, the Petitioner mortgaged plot Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 (9 plots) vide registered document bearing No.3540/2021. Pursuant to the approved plan, the Petitioner made layout without any deviation and then requested the Respondent- authority to release the plots. 3. On the request of the Petitioner, after due verifications Respondent No.2 released the mortgaged plots in ‘A’ Block. However, the plots under ‘B’ Block were refused to be released on the ground of pendency of the civil suit i.e. O.S.No.734 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, which was filed by one P.Rahul, Shanthinikethan Educational Society, Kurnool for bare injunction though no relief was sought for declaration of title. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating that in view of G.O.Ms.No.5 MA & UD Department dated 11.01.2025, the powers exercised by Respondent No.2 were delegated to Respondent No.3. It is also stated that O.S.No.734 of 2023 was filed for injunction against the Petitioner as the Petitioner had 5. 3 constructed a compound wall around his plots without giving access to bore-well and the pipeline as agreed by the writ Petitioner at the time of layout of house plots. .It is stated that, it is on the basis of the pendency of the suit, the property is not being released to the Petitioner. It is also stated that the Petitioner was directed to resubmit his application to Respondent No.3 for release of the subject mortgage deeds through Licensed Technical Person (LTP) after the judgment is rendered in O.S.No.734 of 2023. Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner 6. submitted that the suit is for bare injunction and the same is seeking for access to the bore-well of the Petitioner and is not of a suit for declaration of title. It is submitted that there is no interim injunction in favour of the Petitioner in the said suit and the release of mortgaged plots for ‘B’ Block cannot be delayed on account of the said suit. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no co-relation to the suit filed and the release of mortgaged plots in favour of the Petitioner. Learned standing counsel submitted that the Petitioner 7. should approach Respondent No.3 for release of the mortgaged 4 plots and also subnnitted that the release has been withheld on account of the pendency of the suit referred above. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court reasons as 8. follows: The purpose of the mortgage is to ensure that the terms of layout are duly executed by the Petitioner in compliance with the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules’). Once the layout is made in accordance with the Rules in vogue, there is no occasion for the Respondent- authorities to deny release of the mortgage deeds on any other ground. 9. This is apparent on a reading of Rule 3 (h) (ii) of the Rules, which reads as under: (h) Mortgage of Plotted area for ensuring the development of ‘Internal Development Works’: (ii) The mortgage is purely a measure to ensure compliance of the conditions for development of ‘Internal Development Works’ by the owner/applicant and the Development Authority / Executive Authority is in no way accountable to the plot purchasers in the event of default by the owner/applicant. In view of the above Rule, withholding of plots by the 10. Respondent-authorities is beyond the scope of the Rules and it is considered as an abuse of the power conferred under the Rules. 5 ■ ■/ As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the pendency of O.S.No.734 of 2023 is only a suit for injunction as no co-relation to the release of mortgage deeds and withholding of mortgage deeds by the Respondent-authority is not 11. fair. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with the following 12. directions: (i) The Respondent-authority shall release the mortgaged properties with regard to ‘B’ Block mortgaged properties vide document No.3540/2021 within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Vice Chairman, Kurnool Urban Development Authority, Near Montessori School, A-CAMP, Kurnool Town. Kurnool. Kurnool District. 3. The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, Kurnool District. lit 4. One CC to Sri J Janakirami Reddy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Potham Vengala Reddy (SC For M.Corporation i Rayalaseema region) Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri Soma Raju Yelisetti, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 5. in 6. 7. 8. TF HIGH COURT DATED;30/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 15444 OF 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS