APHC010488992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25090 OF 2025 Between: 1. BANDARU SURYANARAYANA,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, HINDU, R/O. D.NO. 8/7, GANDHI ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAT, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.R ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE KADAPA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, NEAR ADITHYA KALYANA MANDAPAM, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. BASIREDDY SUSEELA, W/O. DR. BASIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 3/947, Y.M.R. COLONY, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in 2 the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2 herein in not considering the representation dated 21-07-2025 made by the petitioner and further taking steps to grant Layout approval to the respondent no.6 herein inspite of bringing it to their notice about the temporary injunction granted against the respondent no.6 herein over the subject property vide order dated 23-09-2024 in LA. No. 1510 of 2023 in OS No. 49 of 2023 passed on the file of Hon'ble II Additional District Judge's Court Kadapa at Proddatur as per se illegal, arbitrary, unfair and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017 apart from violation Article 14, 21, 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to consider the representation dated 21-07-2025 of the petitioner and further direct the respondent no.2 not to accord any Layout approval to the respondent no.6 herein to the subject property IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondent no.2 not to accord any Layout approval to the respondent no.6 herein to the subject property pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.07.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law before granting any layout approval to the respondent no.6 herein in connection with the subject property pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHANTI PRASAD SINGALURI SC For UDA CHITTOOR,KADAPA,KURNOOL,ANP,PUTTAPARTHI 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25090 OF 2025 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Santhi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Kadapa Urban Development Authority. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is not considering the representation dated 21.07.2025 made by the petitioner, filed to refuse the layout approval sought by the 6th respondent, as a civil suit in O.S.No.49 of 2023 is pending between the petitioner and the unofficial 6th respondent. 3. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that if the petitioner’s representation is not considered and any approval is granted in favor of the 6th respondent, the same would defeat the suit and render the same as infructuous. 4. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 21.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Pending disposal of the representation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall not grant any layout approval in favor of the 6th respondent. It 4 is needless to observe that orders on the representation shall be passed only after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 18.09.2025 BSK 5 28 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25090 OF 2025 Date: 18.09.2025 BSK