APHC010452272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24395/2025 Between: Gutta Venugopala Krishna, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.24395 OF 2025 Date of order: 16.06.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.24395 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering his representation dated 13.08.2025 for taking necessary steps to delete the entry of the suggestive road in his land an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.265/2C & 265/3C of Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, by conducting survey of the land. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, appearing for respondent No.1, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation, appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned standing counsel for Capital Regional Development Authority, appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Survey Nos.265/2C and 265/3C of Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner has acquired the said property under a partition deed vide Document No.9276/2018, dated 29.09.2018, which was executed amongst their family members. It is further submitted that the property of the petitioner is abutting the neighboring property, in -3- W.P. No.24395 OF 2025 Date of order: 16.06.2025 respect of which L.P.No.88/82/VGTMUDA was obtained. The learned counsel further submits that the neighboring owner had obtained layout permission by showing a 33-feet wide suggested road, which extends into the land forming subject of LP No.88/82 and the said road has been reflected in the land of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that layout permission could not have been granted beyond the land owned by the applicant and that the 33-feet suggested road is, in fact, overlapping into the property of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 13.08.2025 seeking demarcation of his land. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner has occupied part of a public road. It is submitted that the petitioner sold certain plots to third parties, who in turn obtained permission for construction, including on the public road. The 2nd respondent, through an endorsement dated 02.06.2025, pointed out certain shortfalls that were to be addressed. Further, a stop work order was issued and certain objections were raised by the 2nd respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vendees of the petitioner have brought the objections raised by the 2nd respondent to the notice of the petitioner seeking resolution. In that regard, the petitioner submitted a representation on 13.08.2025. -4- W.P. No.24395 OF 2025 Date of order: 16.06.2025 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has sold a portion of the property to third parties, while retaining a part for his own possession and enjoyment. The claim of the petitioner that his retained land has been wrongly included as part of the proposed road can only be determined after a proper survey is carried out by the competent authority, by correlating the extent of land covered under LP No. 88/82. 7. In view of the submissions, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to conduct a proper survey, after issuing due notice to all concerned parties and to demarcate the petitioner’s property. It is made clear that if any portion of the road is found to be under the occupation of the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. Insofar as the shortfalls mentioned in the endorsement dated 02.06.2025, the applicants shall address them separately in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV