APHC010522782014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 39311/2014 Between: Smt. Sural Jaya Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND Secy M A U D Hyd 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A V RATNAM 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 suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 2nd Respondent Dt:05-07-2014 No. Rc.No. 6669/06/1-1/Ann-II/24, issued in pursuance of the Show cause notice bearing No. Rc. No. Rc.No. 6669/06/1- 1/Ann-11/24" Dated 23-09-2013 and declare the same as illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to law and without jurisdiction, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the rights of the Petitioner in any manner over the residential site bearing Plot No.129-A admeasuring 425.00 Sq. yards of Yendada Layout covered by S.No. 180 Carved 1 Part of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District and Plot No. 168 admeasuring 236.11 Sq. yards in L.P. 36/2009 of Rushikonda Layout covered by S.No. 34 & 35 of Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District and pass.” 2. On 23.12.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “…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 learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned standing Counsel on oral instructions has submitted that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit O.S.No.1449 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein for the plot Nos.129A and 168 in Sy.No.34 and 35 part of Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District only. 3 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 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.1449 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 Rc.No.6669/06/I-1/Ann-II/24, dated 05.07.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.1449 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Senior 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: 05.02.2025 Gss