APHC010431592017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 751/2017 Between: Nambari Appala Raju, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Stare Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 the 2nd Respondent to consider and take action on the petitioner’s representation Dt.25-11-2016 and demolish the stair case constructed by the 3rd Respondent in the 8 feet width passage in D .No.44-7-17/4, Thatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam without building permission and pass…” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of two portioned A.C. sheet roofed house bearing D.No.44-7- 17/1 which is constructed in an area of 86.185 Sq.yards in Tatichetla Palem, Visakhapatanam. The petitioner No.2 had acquired the said house vide registered gift deed bearing No.2848/2010, dated 18.09.2010 and the petitioner No.1, who is the husband of the petitioner No.2 is looking after the property affairs of the subject house and further the southern side of the subject property is earmarked as 8 feet wide path way, which is being used by the petitioners for ingress and egress to reach the Municipal road situated on the western side of their house. 3. While so, the respondent No.3 had purchased a thatched house towards the western side of the petitioners’ house by way of a registered sale deed bearing No.4333/1981 and the said thatched house is constructed in 571/2 Sq.yards. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 demolished the said thatched house and constructed a terraced house bearing No.44-7-17/4, without obtaining permission from the respondent No.2, and subsequently in the year 2010, the respondent No.3 again started constructing first floor without obtaining permission from the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 requesting him to stop the construction made by the respondent No.3. As no action has been taken by the respondent No.2 on the representation made by the petitioner No.1, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3232 of 2011, wherein this Court had closed the said writ petition as the respondent No.2 had admitted in his counter affidavit filed in the above writ petition that the respondent No.3 is constructing the said first floor after obtaining necessary permissions from them. But, however, after the disposal of the said writ petition, the respondent No.2 had conducted an enquiry and found that the respondent No.3 even without obtaining permission for the ground floor of his house, had obtained a fresh permission for constructing the first floor over it and as such, the respondent authorities did not permit the respondent No.3 for constructing the first floor. 4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, once again the respondent No.3 is trying to construct a staircase by encroaching 2 feet width road portion out of 8 feet width road which is being used by the petitioners for their ingress and egress. Alleging the same, the petitioner No.1 had submitted a representation dated 25.11.2016 to the respondent No.2 requesting them to enquire into the matter and demolish the staircase that is being constructed by the respondent No.3. But, no action has been taken by the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same; the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioners through virtual hearing, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. 6. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has furnished a copy of instructions dated 07.01.2025, issued by the Assistant City Planner, Zone-6, GVMC, Visakhapatnam, wherein it is stated that though the respondent No.3 has obtained approval for the first floor over the existing ground floor vide B.A.No.14606/2010/ACP4/G2, dated 10.02.2011 from the respondent No.2, he did not proceed further with the construction work due to the pendency of the present writ petition. But it is not stated as to whether any action has been initiated on the representation dated 25.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner. 7. On a perusal of the instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, it can be seen that because of the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent No.3 had not commenced any construction work, but, however, the 2nd respondent has not mentioned in the instructions as to whether any action has been initiated on the representation dated 25.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner herein. 8. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.2 to take appropriate action on the representation dated 25.11.2016, after duly conducting an enquiry on the allegation made by the petitioner. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.01.2025 SRT 392 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.751 of 2017 Date: 08.01.2025 SRT