APHC010506362014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25284/2014 Between: Smt. Pedanayuni Annapoornamma ...PETITIONER AND Govt Of Ap Rep By Its Prl Secretary And Anothers and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art 226 of India declaring the impugned orders in Rc.No.11693/2007/11/Ann-1/8 dated 05.07.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary void and one without having any power/authority and violation of principles of natural justice and conseqUently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. On 01.09.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “The validity of an order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the Vice-Chairman of the 2nd respondent is challenged in this writ petition. The learned Standing counsel has not been able to show any provision in the statute i.e., The A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 empowering the Vice-Chairman to pass the said order. Certain allegations of irregular exercise of powers by the officials of HUDA in 2009 are made. In this view of the matter, Status quo in all respects shall be maintained by both sides in respect of the subject land. There shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, but however, it shall not preclude the 2nd respondent from initiating civil proceedings for cancellation of Registration of the subject plots before the jurisdictional civil Court.” 3. Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel submitted written instructions, wherein it is stated that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit O.S.No.1074 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein to the extent Plot No.7B in Sy.No.129/P of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District only. 5. On perusal of the said 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 O.S.No.1074 of 2014 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. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings R.C.No.11693/2007/1-1/ANN-I/8 dated05.07.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.1074 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 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: 23.01.2025 ANS 212 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25284/2014 Date: 23.01.2025 ANS