APHC010381442014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16948/2014 Between: Smt. Paila Dhana Lakshmi W/o Maridaya, Hindu, ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV 3. 0 The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the show cause notice bearing No.Rc.No.6669/07/1-1/ANN-II/9 dated 23.9.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner in any manner over the lands bearing plot No.299 of Rushikonda Layout admeasuring 611-11 sq.yards, covered by Sy.No.34 & 35 part of Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District…” 2. Heard Ms.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel submitted the written instructions, wherein it is stated that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit vide O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein to the extent Plot No.299 in Sy.Nos.34 & 35 part of Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District only. 4. On perusal of the written 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 vide O.S.No.98 of 2024 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. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.6669/07/I-1/ANN-II/9 dated 23.09.2013. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.98 of 3 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. 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: 29.01.2025 JLV 4 258 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16948/2014 Date: 29.01.2025 JLV