APHC010508982014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24235/2014 Between: Chitti Venkata Ananda Mouli, Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Maud Dept Hyd Ano and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M S R SUBRAHMANYAM 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: 2 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 Proceedings of the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.11693/2007/1-1/Ann.II/27 Dt.3.7.2014 as violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, illegal and void and pass such other order or orders…” 2. On 25.08.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “The validity of an order dt.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 by the Standing Counsel. 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 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. The petitioner shall not make any alienation or create any third party interest in respect of the land purchased by him.” 3. Heard Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned standing Counsel, on oral instructions submitted that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit vide O.S.No.609 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District 3 Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein to the extent of Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.355/3 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District. 5. As can be seen from the submissions made by the learned standing Counsel, it is clear that even without cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, 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 vide O.S.No.609 of 2015 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.11693/200/1-1/Ann.I/27, Dt.03.07.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.609 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District 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: 19.02.2025 JLV 4 495 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24235/2014 Date: 19.02.2025 JLV