r’ I I APHC010399922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20236 OF 2025 Between: Gondesi Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Gondesi Appa Rao, Aged about 41 years, R/o. D. No. 517-13/2, Reddy Reddy Thunglam village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Vishakapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A. P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravati Guntur District. 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tenneti Viswanadham Bhawan, Aseelmetta Junction, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Chief City Planner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Viswanadham Bhawan, Gajuwaka Zone, Vishakapatnam. 4. The Assistant City Planner, Zone VI, Gajuwaka Zone, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. ...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 order or orders or direction or an appropriate writ more f particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring respondents more particularly respondent no.2 and 3 In interfering and causing demolition in S G 3 Building Construction of the petitioner situated at D. No. 5-17-11 5-17-12 the action of in T.S.No.92/2 of Reddy Thunglam village. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Gajuwaka Zone IV, admeasuring an extent of 473 sq. yards, despite of a valid building permit vide B.A.NO. 14173/2013 dated 06.04.2014 and B.A. No. 10860456/B/Z6/TAM/2025 Dated of article 300-A of 17- 02-2025 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violation Constitution of India and violation of mandatory provisions of Municipal respondents more particularly the respondent No. 2 and 3 to not interfere in any manner with regards to the S^Gt3 Building Construction of the petitioner situated 5-17-11, Administrative Laws and consequently direct the at D.No. 5-17-12 in T.S.No.92/2 of Reddy Thunglam village. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Gajuwaka Zone IV, admeasuring an extent of 473 sq. yards, bearing building permits no s B.A.No.14173/2013 dated 06.04.2014 and B.A. No.10860456/B/Z6/TAM/2025 Dated 17-02-2025. lA NO: 1 OF 209!^ 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 direct the respondents more particularly 2nd and 3rd to not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with regards to the S+G+3 Building Construction of the petitioner situated at D.No.5-17-11 85 5-17-12 in T.S.No.92/2 of Reddy Thunglam village. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Gajuwaka Zone IV, admeasuring an extent of 473 sq. yards, bearing building permits no's B.A.No.14173/2013 10860456/B/Z6/TAM/2025 Dated: 17-02-2025 writ petition. dated 06.04.2014 and B.A. pending disposal of the main No. { r Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4:SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR GVMC The Court made the following order: / 1 HN, J W.P.No.20236 2025 0APHC010399922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20236/2025 Between: 1.GONDESI RAMI REDDY, S/O. LATE GONDESI APPA RAO, AGED R/0. D. NO. 517-13/2, REDDY REDDY ABOUT 41 YEARS THUNGLAM VILLAGE, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISHAKAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT A P SECRETRIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TENNETI VISWANADHAM RAM NAGAR, REP. BY. ITS COMMISSIONER, BHAWAN, VISAKHAPATNAM. ASEELMETTA JUNCTION, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM 3.THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TENNETI VISWANADHAM BHAWAN, GAJUWAKA ZONE, VISHAKAPATNAM. 4.THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, ZONE VI, GAJUWAKA ZONE, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL VISAKHAPATNAM. CORPORATION, ...RESPONDENT{S); HN, j W.P.No.20236_202S Pleased topleased ,o ISSUE an“ir a' writ more particularly one in nature of Writ of m°'^ an appropriate of respondents more particuiarly respondent no"2Tnd" 3 causing demolition in S G 3 Buiidino ronct , ^ interfering and atD. No. 5-17-11 5-17-12 in T.IT lp°r p aa°" Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Gaiuwaka Greater extent of 473 sq yards deso^r nf' 'ra I '''' admeasuring an 14173/2013 dated 06 04 2014 and B A No^ inann^'"® 17- 02-2025 as wholly iSartoi^arS^^^^^ Constitution of India and violation of mandatory Administrative Laws and consequently direct the particularly the respondent No 2 and 3 tn nnt ■ t r»~'v extent of 473 sq. yards, bearing building dated 06.04.2014 and B.A. No And be pleased to pass article 300-A of provisions of Municipal respondents more village, Greater admeasuring permits nos B.A.NO. 14173/2013 10860456/B/Z6/TAM/2025 Dated an 17-02-2025. jA NO: 1 OF 207/; in the'altvht" fn'stpod Inhe oTt"■"^r'" pleased to direct the responders 1^^'°"’ P'®--d interfere in any manner whatsoever with "reSds'to "the" 'b Td‘ Construction of the petitioner situated at D.No 5-T7.H a o ® CorpoLiS tSa^ZonelV 'adT' Visakhapatnam Mumcipll bearing huiiding^ Permits^B aTo^^S" B.A. No. 10860456/B/Z6/TAM/2025 Dated- 17 02 2025 °®-°'‘-2014 and the main writ petition and be pleased ^ disposal of Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP 3 HN, J W.P.No,20236_2025 The Court made the following Order: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the unilateral action of the respondent authorities in interfering with the developmental undertaken by the petitioner submitted that the petitioner initially obtained activity which is being premises bearing No.5-17-12. on It is permission for construction of a residential complex on 06.07.2014. However, due to financial difficulties building could not be constructed. That apart, there , the were certain issues with such, the building construction could not be completed in terms of the sanctioned plan. A fresh application permission, and the 2"^^ respondent sanctioned permission on 01.07.2025. the development, and as was made for 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the representatives of the 2'"'^ respondent came to the construction site and resorted to demolishing the walls. It is submitted that due to business rivalry between the petitioner and anonymous complainants, the 2"^ respondent acted at the behest of those anonymous complainants and resorted to illegal activities, including demolishing the walls. It is also submitted that the surveyor of the 2"^ respondent had conducted a survey in the year 2013 itself and had submitted a report, duly informing that the land in Survey No.92/2 of Tunglam Village is private land and that the petitioner was constructing on private land. 3. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 submits that a survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and to 4 HN,j W.P.No.20236_2025 that the land admeasuring 386 ID Project State Government survey conducted square yards in Survey No.92/2 Land. was noted as It is also submitted that as per the on 09.05.2025, the land survey report would be forwarded would belong to APIIC. The to the APIIC for necessary action from their end. 4. Considering the submissions after hearing the submissions respondent Nos. 2 and 4, this Court and the survey report conducted The respondent authorities have the building. While the action in the event if any deviation directly entered the basis of anonymous learned Standing photographs furnished along with of the learned of the learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the survey report of 2013 are contrary to each other, reconstruction of power to take any they could not have resorted to demolition solely on the is disputed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 the writ petition speak for themselves. Observed that the on 09.05.2025 sanctioned permission for respondent authorities do have the from the construction construction site and complaints. Though the demolition counsel appearing for the the 5. Be that as it may. the respondent authorities are hereby directed not to petitioner without following the petitioner shall not construction from the sanctioned interfere with the construction activity of the due process of law. it is also made clear that the any unauthorized or deviated resort to plan. 5 HN, J W.P.No.20236_2025 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be costs. no order as to As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIOI^^ICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravati Guntur District. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Viswanadham Bhawan, Visakhapatnam. The Chief City Planner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Viswanadham Bhawan, Gajuwaka Zone, Vishakapatnam. The Assistant City Planner, Zone VI, Gajuwaka Zone, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for GVMC[OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies. and Urban 2. Aseelmetta Junction, Ramnagar, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER WP No.20236 OF 2025 i 03 SEP 2025 '% Current Section ^r\ ¥- ^ wwiieiK aeciion '«sSSSPATC»tO, DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS