APHC010351152016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14398/2016 Between: N. Abdul Salam, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SHAFATH AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in returning the application of the Petitioners for permission of construction of compound wall of plot No.17 in Sy. No. 578-B situated at Gooty-Tadipatry Road, in Gooty Town vide endorsement in Roc. No. 495/2015/G1 dated: 14/09/2015 as. arbitrary, illegal and in violation Section 215 of the Municipalities Act 1965 and the Rules and Articles 14 and 300A of the constitution of India and principles. of natural justice and consequently to direct the 2nd Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application dt: 20/08/2015 of the Petitioners forthwith, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...” 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of an application submitted by the petitioners for the construction of compound wall for plot Nos.17 and 24 in Sy.No.578-B to an extent of Acs.0.6 cents situated at Gooty, Tadipatry road, Gooty town in L.P.No.474/1984, the municipal town planning staff, Gooty municipality visited the site and have submitted a report stating that the petitioners have applied permission previously vide B.A.No.48/2014/G1, and the same was returned by the office with endorsement dated 02.08.2014 as under: “The proposes Site falls approved layout vide L.P. No: 476/1984 but the plot measurements are not tallied as per approved layout as well as on ground.” 3. Thereafter, the petitioners have again submitted application on 20.08.2015 and the same was rejected vide the impugned endorsement in Roc.No.495/2015/G1, dated 14.09.2015 due to the following reasons: “1. The applicant has submitted total land document and also the applicant has not submitted the individual plot documents. i.e. plot No.17 2. The plot measurements are not tallied as per approval layout (L.P.No.476/1984 as well as on ground position.” 4. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement in Roc.No.495/2015/G1, dated 14.09.2015, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised several contentions, however, has sought permission of this Court to file a fresh application before the 2nd respondent duly complying with the objections raised by the respondents vide the impugned endorsement in Roc.No.495/2015/G1, dated 14.09.2015. He further sought for a direction to the respondents to consider and take necessary action in pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has stated that the respondent authorities would consider the application as and when the same is submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh application seeking permission for construction of compound wall of plot No.17 in SY.No.578-B situated at Gooty, Tadipatry road, Gooty town by duly complying with the objections raised by the 2nd respondent vide the impugned endorsement dated 14.09.2015 and upon receipt of such application, the same may be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. 8. 8. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 02.01.2025 GSS