APHC010003332016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10445/2016 Between: P Padmaja & Anot and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Ap Prl Scy M A D Hyd 3 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.10445 of 2016 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in proposing to construct 33/11 KV Sub- Station in the Petitioners’ land admeasuring 653 Square Yards and 632 Square Yards respectively (totalling to 1285 Square Yards), situated in Ward No.18, Block No.23, T.S.No.1749/1, 2, Koritapadu, D.No.5, Guntur, without any authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the schedule property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.11884/1981 dated 16.11.1981 and the said property is situated in approved layout bearing No.52/1972 as revised in LP No.10/1984 by VGTUDA. There were certain disputes with the respondent Corporation with regard to title. The petitioners had filed O.S.No.190 of 2004 on the file of the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction, the same was decreed on 18.7.2006. The said judgment was confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.870 of 2010 and the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the title of the petitioners to the schedule 3 property had attained finality, the respondent authorities are not entitled to make any construction of sub-station in schedule property. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that substation was not constructed in the schedule property and was constructed at a different location. 4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, confirms the said submission made by the Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Corporation. 5. In that view, the grievance of the petitioners is redressed and no cause survives for adjudication in the Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J 24.4.2025 TJN 4 32 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.10445 of 2016 Dt.24-4-2025 TJN