■ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) / MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29651 OF 2012 BETWEEN; 1. K.Subba Reddy, S/o.late K.Rami Reddy, Aged about 75 years, R/o.36-92-37/10, ' S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam. Smt.B.Anuradha, W/o.Sri B.Rama Rao, Aged about 45 years, R/o.D.No.- 36-92-37/33, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visaldiapatnam. D.Eliali, S/o.Sri Yesudas, Aged about 44 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/35, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatna G.V.V.Satyanarayana, S/o.Sri Appa Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/26, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam. P.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Sri P.Rama Rao, Aged about 38 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/29, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam. T.K.Das, S/o.Sri S.C.Das, Aged about 45 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/31, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visaldiapatnam. N.N.Suryanarayana, S/o.Sri Mogalaiah, Aged about 70 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/6, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam. N.Nagaraju, S/o.Sri N.N.Suryanarayana, Aged about 32 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/3-1, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnain. B.Bangaraiah, S/o.Sri Venkataratnam, Aged about 37 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/3, S.E.Railway Employees Colon}/, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam. Smt.N.Rajini, W/o.Sri N.Rajesh, Aged about 28 years, R/o.D.No. 36-92-37/5, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam. E.V.S.S.R..K.V.Prasada Rao, S/o.Sri Suryanaraya Aged about 35 years, R/o.D.No. >3 6-92-37/4, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Kapparada, Visakhapatnam. CD m. (D 11. na. a _/ X.Sumitra, D/o.X.Prabhudas, Aged about 32 years, No. 36-92-37/30, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Klapparada, Visakhapatnam. (3 P.Venkata Ramana, S/o.Sri Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 42 years, R/o.E).No. 36-92-37/16, S.E.Railway Employees Colony, Ktipparada, Visakhapatnam. Smt.A.Satyamamiba, W/o.late Viswanadha Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No. 3 6-92-37/1-1, S.E.Railway Employee's Colony, ICapparada, Visakhapatnam. . . .PETITIONERS AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Visaldiapatnam. 1. Smt.Athili Appalaswamy, S/o.late A.P.V.Ramana Murthy, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.Burma Colony, Behind Steel City Public School, KLancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated be pleased to Issue a Writ of Mand praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may amus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Proceedings issued by the 1®* vide B.P.S.NO.1085/2008/ACP-IV, Dt._.08.2012 revoking the Proceedings BPS NO.1085/2008/IV/38, Respondent Dt.30:12.2010 pertaining to the 1 B.P.S.No. 1082/2008/ACP-IV, Dt._.08.2012 revoking the Proceedings BPS No. 1 082/2008/IV/38, St Petitioner; Dt.30.12.2010 pertaining B.P.S.No.932/2008/ACP-IV, NO.932/2008/IV/38, Dt._.08.2012 revoking B.P.S.No.1 1 32/2008/ACP-iV Dt.30.12.2010 pertaining Dt._.08.2012 revoking No. 1 1 32/2008/IV/38, Dt._.08.2012 to Dt.30.12.2010 revoking pertaining No. 856/2008/11V/38, to B.P.S.NO.856/2008/ACP-IV, Dt.30.12.2010 pertaining revoking No.690/2008/IV/38, to B.P.vS.No,314/2008/ACP-IV, to B. PS. No. 690/2008/AC P-IV, Dt.30.12.2010 Dt._.08.2012 pertaining Dt._.08.2012 revoking to the 2 Proceedings BPS the 4 the nd Petitioner, the Proceedings BPS the 3'’'^ Petitioner; Petitioner; the Proceedings BPS the 5 Proceedings BPS the 6 the Petitioner; th th th Petitioner; the Proceedings BPS NO.314/2008/IV/38. Dt.30.1 2.201 O pertaining to B.P.S.No.31 1/2008/ACP-IV, Dt._.08.2012 revoking B.P.S.NO.313/2008/ACP-IV Dt.30.12.2010 revoking No.31 1/2008/IV/38, Dt. _.08.2012 Dt.30.12.2010 pertaining revoking B.F3.S. No, 31 5/2008/AC P-IV, to No.31 3/2008/IV/38, Dt._.08.2012 pertaining No.312/2008/IV/3 8, Dt._.08.2012 Dt.30.12.2010 pertaining B.P.S.NO.1151/2008/ACP-IV, Dt._.08.2012 revoking the 7‘^ Petitioner; the Proceedings BPS the 8th Petitioner; the Proceedings BPS the 9*^ Petitioner- the Proceedings BPS the 10th Petitioner; the Proceedings BPS the 11*^ Petitioner; the Proceedings BPS the 12 perlaining to No.31 5/2008/1V/38, Dt.30.12.2010 to B.P.S.No.312/2008/AC P-IV, Dt.30.12.2610 Dt.__.08.2012 revoking pertaining to B.P.S.No.1425/2008/ACP-IV, No. 1425/2008/1V/38, revoking to th Petitioner; the Proceedings BPS Petitioner; and Dt.__.O8.2012 revoking the Proceedings BPS No. 11 51/2008/1V/38, Dt.30.12.201 O pertaining to the B.P.S.NO.23S9/2008/ACP-IV, 13 th NO.2369/2008/IV/38, Dt.30.12.2010 pertaining to the 14**^ Petitioner; under Sec.450 of HMC Act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary, bereft of reasons, hasty, unwarranted and without jurisdiction and set aside the same. W.P. is dismissed as not pressed in respect of petitioners 2 to 14 as per C.O. dated 21/09/2012. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 37857 OF 2012) 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 grant interim suspension of the proceedings issued by the 1 respondent vide B.P.S.No. 1085/2008/ACPIV, dt: 08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS No. 1085/2008/iV/38, dt: 30-122010 pertaining to the 1 petitioner B.P.S.No. 1082/2008/ACP-IV, dt: 08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS No. 1082/2008/IV138, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to 2 petitioner, BPS No.932/2008/ACP-IV, dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS NO.932/2008/IV/38, Dt; 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 3'^'^ petitioner; B.P.S.No.1132/2008/ACP-IV, DT: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS No.1132/2008/IV/38, DT: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 4*'^ petitioner BP.S. NO.856/2008/ACP-IV, dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS St St nd NO.856/2008/IV/38, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 5*^ petitioner, BPS NO.690/2008/ACP-IV, dt: 08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS No.690/2008/iV/38, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 6 th petitioner B.P.S.NO.314/2008/ACP-IV, dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS NO.314/2008/IV/38, Dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 7**^ petitioner; BPS NO.311/2008/ACP-IV, dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS NO.311/2008/IV/38, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 8 th petitioner; B.P.S.No.313/2008/ACP-IV, dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS NO.313/2008/IV/38, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 9*^ petitioner, BP.S NO.315/2008/ACP-IV, DT: NO.315/2008/IV/3 8, Dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 10 -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS. petitioner th B.P.S.NO.312/2008/IV/38, Dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS NO.312/2008/IV/38, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 11 B.P.S.NO.1425/2008/ACP-IV, DT: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS NO.1425/2008/IV/38. dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 12 B.P.S.No.1151/2008/ACP-IV, dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS No.1151/2008/IV/38, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 13^'^ petitioner; and B.P.S.NO.2369/2008/ACP-IV, dt: -08-2012 revoking the proceedings BPS N0.2369/IV/38, dt: 30-12-2010 pertaining to the 14**^ petitioner under section 450 of HMC Act, 1955 pending disposal of the above writ petition. th petitioner; th petitioner; Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010339122012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29651/2012 Between: K. Subba Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Greater Visakhapatnarn Municipal Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP 2. G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following; 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29651 OF 2012 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners assailing the Proceedings \ issued by the Respondent No.1 revoking the BPS Proceedings dated 30.12.2010 under different numbers by exercising power under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Sri G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 would submit that this issue is squarely covered by the Order of this Court in W.P.No.30782 of 2012 and batch, dated 18.08.2015 and requested this Court to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also. 3. In view of the unanimity of submissions by all the counsels, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Order passed in W.P.No.30782 of 2012 and batch, dated 18.08.2015. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. 3 of the order in The Registry is directed to annex a copy and batch, dated 18.08.2015 along with this order. W.P.No.30782 of 2012 Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SE FiCER 1. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnarn. 2. One CC to Srnt V Sesha Kumari, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A S C Bose, (SC for Municipal Corporations) [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order dated 18.08.2015 in V\/P.No.30782 of 2012) RAM HIGH COURT DATED:21/04/2025 ORDER fe 0 2 MAY 20?5 % % WP.N0.29S51 of 2012 . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER RFDOV W.P.Nos.30782, 30786,30795, 30804, 30812, 30814, 30827, 30883, 30897, 31037 and 31293 of 2012 Writ Petition No. 30782 OF 2012 Between: N.Nagaraiu. Petitioner And in !ii Rep, by its Commissioner. Visakhapatnam and another. Respondents Date nf .Judnment nrnnniinnpH- 18 .08.201.5 Submitted for Approval: The Hon’ble Sri Justir.e A.Raiasheker Reddv .1, Whether Reporters nf Local newspapers May be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/Np 2. Whether the copies nf judgment may he Marked to Law Reporters/. Inurnal.s Yes/No 3. Whether His Copy of the JiiHgmpnt? m nr Yes/No HONOURABLE SRI, JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.Nos.30782, 30786, 30795, 30804,30812, 30814, 30827, 30883, 30897, 31037 and 31293 of 2012 COMMON ORDER As the issue inyolved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. All these writ petitions are filed assailing the proceedings issued by the first respondent, revoking the BPS proceedings dated 30.12.2010 under different file numbers by exercising power under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by virtue of which the structures belonging to the petitioners were regularized. The case of petitioners in all these cases is that the first respondent having considered their cases and having found to be eligible for regularization, have issued BPS proceedings regularizing their structures by virtue of BPS proceedings dated 30.12.2010. Now, the only ground on which the said BPS proceedings dated 30.12.2010 have been revoked is basing on the orders passed by this Court in Review W.P.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 W.A.No.1840 of 2008 dated 30.04.2011. Against the said orders dated 13.04.2011, S.LP (Civil) No.3489 of 2012 3. in t has been filed and leave has been granted. Civil Appeal No.10404 of 2014 arising out of S,LP.(Civil) No.3489 of 2012 has been allowed setting aside the impugned order of this Court passed in Review Petition W.P.M.P.No.1540/2009 in W.A,No.1840 of 2008 dated 30.04.2011. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Laxminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the 2"’^ respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced his arguments reiterating the averments in the writ 4. 5. affidavits. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent would submit that in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10404 of 2014, the impugned proceedings in these writ petitions are liable to be set aside. 6. 7. Learned Counsel for the 2"'^ respondent submits that though order in Review in W.P.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 is set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the extent of determining sale consideration, the same is remitted back. He also taken note of pendency of two writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.1216 of 2004 and W.P.No.735 of 2007, which are filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 05.03.2003 and also G.O.Ms.No.455, Revenue dated 29.07.2002. 8. The only ground on which the impugned orders have been passed in view of orders passed by this Court in Review W.P.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008. The impugned orders have been passed revoking the regularization proceedings granted in favour of the petitioners. When once the Civil Appeal No.10404 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3489 of 2012 has been allowed and the order of review in W.P.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008, dated 30.04.2011 has been set aside by the Apex Court, it has become final. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2"=* respondent thal the writ appeals are pending, they are pending only to the limited extent of payment of balance, of sale consideration. However, they will not affect the BPS regularization proceedings in favour of the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the 2"'^ respondent would submit that the petitioner in W.P.No.30897 of 2012 is not a member of the society and is nothing to do with the said society. But the fact remains that the impugned order in this writ petition is also basing on the orders passed in Review W.P.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008. When once the order under Review has been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned orders in these writ petitions have to be set aside. In view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10404 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3489 of 2012, which has been allowed and the order of review in W,P.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008, dated 30.04.2011 has been set aside, the impugned BPS proceedings in these writ petitions are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. Accordingly, all these writ petitions allowed. are shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 18.08.2015. KVS llQNmRA.BLE.SRUU5.TICE.A,RA.J.A.S.HEIlER R.EDD Y