APHCO10531712024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N m] X 8 a WRIT PETITION NO: 27480 OF 2024 AND CONTEMPT CASE No.1309 of 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 27480 OF 2024 Between: 1. Jampana Ravi Kishore, S/o. Jampana Ramakrishna Raju, Aged 30 years, Occ- Business, R/o. D.No. 409, Sarika Veedhi, Padamajjipalem, Gantyada Mandal Vizianagaram District. 2. Bagadi Venkat Naidu, S/o. late B.Ram Naidu Aged 63 years, Occ- Business, R/o. D.No.31-5-9/43, Flat No. 504, Sri Mitr Residency, Satavahana Nagar, Kurmannapalem, Road No. 8, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Rep. by GPA holder Jampana Ravi Kishore, S/o. Jampana Ramakrishna Raju, Aged 30 years, Occ- Business, R/o. Padamajjipalem, Gantyada Mandal, j D.No. 409, Sarika Veedhi, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation(GVMC), Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2^ City-PTanner; Greater VIsaRMpa^^^ (GVMC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Zone - III, Municipal Corporation (GVMC), Greater Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 5. Mahanti Papa Rao, S/o. Late Vengaiah, Aged 84 years, R/o.D.No.10- 50-84, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 6. M/s Legend Estates Pvt Ltd, Rep. by B. Nageswara Rao, Managing Director, H.No. 10-38-22/6/1 m, Ramnagar, Revenue Ward No. 19 Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of 2"^^ respondent in passing the impugned order in Rc.No.e- office 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1 dated 29.05.2024 without considering the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.25966 of 1998 and W.A.No.1359 of 2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with possession of the petitioners property over an extent of 1743 Sq. Yards in T.S. No. 1031 of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to direct the respondents herein not to interfere with possession of the petitioners property over an extent of 1743 Sq. Yards in T.S. No. 1031 of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits by suspending the impugned order in Rc.No.e-office 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1 dated 29.05.2024 passed by the 2""' respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. r lA NO: 2 OF 202& 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 to direct the respondents herein not to undertake any transactions either by way of sale/mortgage/lease/ transfer or any other from or alienation with respect to the land admeasuring an extent of 1743 Sq.Yards in Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam disposal of the W.P.No.27480 of 2024. T.S.No.1031 of District, pending lA NO: 3 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 May Be Pleased To Receive The Documents Viz., Copy Of 2 Building Permit Orders, Photographs Of The This Dispute Property, Copy Of Order In WP 35146 Of 2012, Copy Of 2 Stop Work Orders Issued By The GVMC, Copy Of Property Tax Receipts, Copy Of Electricity Indemnity Bond, Copy Of Test Report, A Copy Of Order In WP 13812 Of 2023, A Copy Of GVMC Commissioner Proceedings, Copy Of Property Tax And Water Receipts In The Name Of M. Papa Rao And Copy Of Property Tax And Water Receipts In The Name Of Petitioners In The Present Writ Petition, As Material Papers / Documents. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: M/s Legend Estates. Pvt Ltd, Rep. by B. Nageswara Rao, Managing Director, H.No.tO-38-22/6/1 m, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District Revenue Ward No. 19, ...VACATE STAY PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.6 AND M r' 1, Jampana Ravi Kis1norar-S/&.”^ampa“naH^amaRffsFma- Raju years, Occ- Business, R/o. D.No. 409, Sarika Veedhi, Padamajjipalem, Gantyada Mandal Vizianagaram District. ^ed 30 - - 2. Bagadi Venkat Naidu, S/o. late B.Ram Naidu Aged 63 years, Occ- Business, R/o. D.No.31-5-9/43, Flat No. 504 Sri Mitr Residency, Satavahana Nagar, Kurmannapalem, Road No. 8, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Rep. by GPA holder Jampana Ravi Kishore, S/o. Jampana Ramakrishna Raju, Aged 30 years, Occ- Business, R/o. D.No. 409, Sarika Veedhi Padamajjipalem, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT No.1 & 2/WRIT PETITIONER 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation(GVMC), Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Chief City Planner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6. The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Zone - III, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), Visakhapatnam District. 7. Mahanti Papa Rao, S/o. Late Vengaiah, Aged 84 years, R/o.D.No.10- 50-84, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. A.P. Greater Visakhapatnam, ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 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 to VACATE the interim order, dated 26.11.2024 passed in lA. No.1 of 2024 in WP. No. 27480 of 2024 and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits with exemplary costs, in the interests of justice. r' ^^uiTset forttie Pe^titian^sr^Rt^rVtNOD K^REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4:SRI A. S. C. BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) Counsel for the Respondent No.5:— Counsel for the Respondent No.6:SRI K.V.S.D. RAVI TEJA APHC010250572025 ■I CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1309 OF 2025 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondents under the Sec. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, for the violation of the Order passed by this Hon’ble Court in I.A.No.1 of2024dt.26.11.2024 in W.P.No.27480 of 2024. Between: 1. Jampana Ravi Kishore, S/o. Jampana Ramakrishna Raju, Aged 30 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No. 409, Sarika Veedhi, Padamajjipalem, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Bagadi Venkat Naidu, S/o. late B.Ram Naidu Aged 63 years, Occ Business. R/o. D.No.31-5-9/43. Flat No. 504, Sri Mitra Residency, Satavahana Nagar, Kurmannapalem, Road No. 8, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Rep. by GPA holder Jampana Ravi Kishore, S/o. Jampana Ramakrishna Raju, Aged 30 years. Occ Business, R/o. D.No.409, Sarika Veedhi Padamajjipalem, Gantyada Mandal Vizianagaram District. FETmcrrs[ERS^ AND 1. Sri D. V. Ramana Murthy, Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Commissioner (GVMC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Chief City Planner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) District. 3. Smt. K. Jhansi Lakshmi, Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Zone - 111, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. M/s Legend Estates Pvt Ltd, Rep. by B. Nageswara Rao, Managing Director, H.No. 10-38-22/6/1 m, Ramnagar, Revenue Ward No. 19, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI A. S. C. BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) Counsel for the Respondent No.4:SRI K.V.S.D. RAVI TEJA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010531712024 IN THEHTGirCOURrOF ANDHRAPRAOESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.27480 of 2024 and CONTEMPT CASE No.1309 of 2025 WP.No. 27480/2024 Between: 1.JAMPANA RAVI KISHORE,, S/0. JAMPANA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO. 409, SARIKA VEEDHI, PADAMAJJIPALEM, GANTYADA MANUAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2.BAGADI VENKAT NAIDU, , S/0. LATE B.RAM NAIDU AGED 63 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.31-5-9/43, FLAT NO. 504, SRI MITR RESIDENCY, SATAVAHANA NAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM, ROAD NO. 8, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. REP. BY GPA HOLDER JAMPANA RAVI KISHORE, S/O. JAMPANA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 409, SARIKA VEEDHI, PADAMAJJIPALEM, GANTYADA MANUAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GVMC, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3.THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GVMC), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4.THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING ZONE - III, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GVMC), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5.MAHANTI PAPA RAO, S/O. LATE VENGAIAH, AGED 84 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.10-50-84, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6.M/S LEGEND ESTATES PVT LTD, REP. BY B. NAGESWARA RAO, MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.NO. 10-38-22/6/1 M, RAMNAGAR, REVENUE WARD NO. 19, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...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 II2II WP.No.27480 of 2024 &CC.NO.1309 of 2025 , tomay be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature" of “Mandamus declaring the action of 2hd “resp6nderit in passing" the' impugned order in Rc.No.e- office 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1 dated 29.05.2024 without considering the orders of this Honble Court in W.P.No.25966 of 1998 and W.A.No.1359 of 2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with possession of the petitioners property over an extent of 1743 Sq. Yards in T.S. No. 1031 of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents herein not to interfere with possession of the petitioners property over an extent of 1743 Sq. Yards in T.S. No. 1031 of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits by suspending the impugned order in Rc.No.e-office 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1 dated 29.05.2024 passed by the 2"'^ respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass lA 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 may be pleased to VACATE the interim order, dated 26.11.2024 passed in lA. No. 1 of 2024 in WP. No. 1 of 2024 in WP. No. 27480 of 2024 and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits with exemplary costs, in the interests of justice and pass lA 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 may be pleased to direct the respondentsherein not to undertakeany transactions either by way of sale/mortgage/lease/ transfer or any other from or alienationwith respect to the land admeasuring an extent of 1743 Sq.Yards in T.S.No.1031 of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposalof the W.P.No.27480 of 2024 and pass lA NO: 3 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 May Be Pleased To Receive The Documents Viz., Copy Of 2 Building Permit Orders, Photographs Of The This Dispute Property, Copy Of Order In WP 35146 Of 2012, Copy Of 2 Stop Work Orders Issued By The GVMC, Copy Of Property Tax Receipts, Copy Of Electricity Indemnity Bond, Copy Of Test Report, A Copy Of Order In WP 13812 Of 2023, A Copy Of GVMC Commissioner Proceedings, Copy Of Property Tax And Water Receipts in The Name Of M. Papa Rao And Copy Of Property Tax And Water Receipts In The Name Of Petitioners In The Present Writ Petition, As Material Papers / Documents And Pass 117,11 WP.No.27480 of 2024 & CC.No.1309 of 2025 f Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1.VVINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3.KVSD RAVI TEJA CONTEMPT CASE No.1309 of 2025 Between: 1.JAMPANA RAVI KISHORE, S/O. JAMPANA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC PADAMAJJIPALEM, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2.BAGADI VENKAT NAIDU,, S/O. LATE B.RAM NAIDU AGED 63 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. D.N0.31-5-9/43, FLAT NO. 504, SRI MITRA RESIDENCY, SATAVAHANA NAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM, ROAD NO. 8, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. REP. BY GPA HOLDER JAMPANA RAVI KISHORE, S/O. JAMPANA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO. 409, SARIKA VEEDHI, PADAMAJJIPALEM, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO. 409, SARIKA VEEDHI, AND 1.SRI D V RAMANA MURTHY, COMMISSIONER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER (GVMC), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO, CHIEF CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GVMC) VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3.SMT K JHANSI LAKSHMI, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING ZONE - III, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GVMC) VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4.M/S LEGEND ESTATES PVT LTD, REP. BY B. NAGESWARA RAO, MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.NO. 10-38-22/6/1 M, RAMNAGAR, REVENUE WARD NO. 19, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to punish the Respondents under the Sec. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, for the violation of the Order passed by this Honble Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 dt.26.11.2024 in W.P.No.27480 of 2024 and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VV1NODK REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2.KVSD RAVI TEJA The Court made the following: UAH WP.No.27480 of 2024 &CC.NO.1309 of 2025 . THE MON^BLE SRf JUSTICE HARrNATH. N WRIT PETITION No.27480 of 2024 and CONTEMPT CASE No.1309 of 2025 COMMON ORDER : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2 vide RC No. E Office 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1, dated 29.05.2024. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 has not considered the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.25966 of 1998 and WA.No.1359 of 2004 and passed the impugned proceedings, which deserve to be set aside. 2. The contempt case is filed alleging violation of the interim orders passed by this Court on 26.11.2024 in IA.No.1 of 2024, whereby this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' property for an extent of 1743 Square Yards in TS.No.1031, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Limits. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.6 had obtained permission for construction without having any right, title or interest over the property which belongs to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners purchased the property vide a registered sale deed on 31.07.2015 from their vendor, Sri K.S.N. Raju. It is also submitted that the vendors of the petitioners purchased the land by virtue of the registered sale deed on 05.06.1970 from one V.Manikyeswara Rao. It is also submitted that ever since the petitioners purchased the said property, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and have also constructed an asbestos sheet shed. It is also submitted that the competent municipal authorities have WP.No.27480 of 2024 &CC.No.1309of2025 r assessed the property for taxes.and have also_issued a house number for the property of the petitioners. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners purchased the property vide a registered sale deed on 31.07.2015. Ho\A/ever, the Sub-Registrar did not release the registered document; the document was issued a pending No.P 383 of 2015. It is also submitted that the 2"‘^petitioner filed an appeal before the District Registrar and Appellate Authority vide Appeal No.3 of 2023, aggrieved by the denial of registration and release of the registered document. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, had allowed the appeal and directed the concerned Sub Registrar to release the registered document. 5. Accordingly, the Sub-Registrar released the registered document to the petitioners on 27.04.2023. The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring 1743 square yards in TS.No.1031. It is submitted that on receipt of a complaint from a third party, the Electricity Department had disconnected the power connection to the petitioners' property. The petitioners filed a WP.No.32405 of 2022 challenging the action of removal of the electricity meter. This Court allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 18.11.2022. The respondents therein were directed to restore the electricity connection. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that, as things stood thus, the 6‘^respondent obtained building permission on 14.07.2020 over an extent of 608.88 square meters out of the total extent of land of 1743 square yards. It WP.No.27480 of 2024 & CC.No.1309 of 2025' - _ 6%espondent had played fraud and obtained the building permission. It is the case of the respondent no. 6 that a Development Agreement cum GPA was executed between the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 09.08.2012. On the strength of the said document, the 2"'^respondent had granted permission for construction. It is submitted that the 5‘^respondent claims to have acquired title over the property by virtue of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 14.08.1974. It is also submitted that the 5*'’respondent is a total stranger to the property owned and possessed by the petitioners. Thus, the S'^^respondent does not have any right or power to enter into any agreement or understanding with 6*^respondent or with any third party for the property over which respondent No.5 does not have any right or title. 7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the S'^respondent had approached the erstwhile Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and sought to obtain permission for the construction of a building over the land belonging to the petitioners. The same was returned by the endorsement dated 08.01.1997 by the Municipal Corporation Vishakhapatnam. It is also informed to the petitioners that the respondent approached the Urban Land Ceiling Authority under Section 15(1) of the ULC Act seeking a no-objection certificate. The same was rejected by the competent authority vide endorsement dated 08.08.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5 filed WP. 25966 of 1998. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 04.01.2002. This Court held that the agreement of sale dated 14.08.1974 on an WP.No.27480of2024 &CC.NO.1309 of 2025 mu r relied upon by the respondent No,5, would not cpnfer any ittle, as the same is hit by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas(Prohibition of Allegation) Act, 1972. The respondent No.5 subsequently filed WA.No.1359 of 2004 challenging the order passed in WP.No.25966 of 1988. It is also submitted that the respondent No.5 withdrew the writ appeal by seeking leave of the Court to approach the competent city civil court. The writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.09.2004. 8. The learned Senior Counsel submits, that the respondent No.5, instead of approaching the Civil Court, had entered into a Development Agreement dated 09.08.2012 with the respondent No.6. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the respondent No.5 executed a Development Agreement Cum GPA in favour of the 6th respondent which was registered as Document No. 10870 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022 with respect to the same property over which the petitioners have right and title. The petitioner challenged the same and filed WP.No. 18065 of 2023, which is pending adjudication before this Court. 9. It is further submitted that the respondent No.6 approached the respondent No.2 by placing heavy reliance on the Development Agreement dated 09.08.2012 and sought Building permission over an extent of 608.88 square meters of land out of the total extent of 1743 square yards of land belonging to the petitioners. The respondent No.2 granted building permission on 17.07.2020. The petitioners, having come to know about the same, filed WP.No.13812 of 2023 challenging the building permission issued to the respondent No.6. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 26.02.2024, directing WP.No.27480 of 2024 &CC.NO.1309 of 2025 • the respondent No.3 to consider the explanation of respondent No.6 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.6 and pass a reasoned order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of that order. In pursuance of the order, the respondent No.2 called upon the petitioners, the respondent No.6 and other interested persons and conducted a hearing on 06.04.2024. 10. It is submitted that the petitioners submitted all the relevant documents relating to the property and sought cancellation of the permission granted in favour of respondent No.6. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 did not pass any orders and kept the same pending for reasons better known to respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioners filed CC No. 3452 of 2024 alleging contempt of the orders of the Court by the 2'’'^respondent. When the contempt was pending consideration by this Court, the respondent No.2 informed the Court that a speaking order dated 29.05.2024 was passed and the Contempt Case was closed, granting liberty to challenge the speaking order dated 29.05.2024. 11. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 had authority to give a finding on the title of a property by assuming the role of a Civil Judge. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has exceeded his jurisdiction and discussed irrelevant aspects in the impugned proceedings. It is submitted that the 2'^‘^respondent has not referred to any of the orders passed in WP.No.25966 of 1998 and the WA.No.1359 of 2004. no WP.No.27480 of 2024 & CC.No.1309 of 2025 ( 12,_The 6^resp_on_dent^has filed. a_counter.and vacate peUUon by endorsing, the impugned proceedings as justifiable and in accordance with the legal framework. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings passed by the 2"'^respondent align with the documents submitted by the 6*'^respondent and that it is not justifiable to state that the 2"‘^respondent has decided the title issue. 13. The petitioners sought cancellation of the building permission granted to the e^'respondent on the ground that the 5*^respondent does not have the right and title to execute the registered development agreement cum GPA. The petitioners had placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.25966 of 1998. However, the observation of the Division Bench in WA.No.1359 of 2004 was ignored by the petitioner. The Division Bench while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.25966 of 1998. 14. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner in WP.No.25966 of 1998. was advised that he need not approach the Civil Court as he was in continuous physical possession and enjoyment of the property from the year 1974. It is submitted that Nalam Ramlingeswara Rao or his legal heirs did not file any appeal on the common judgment passed in OS.No.33 of 1983 and OS.No.167 of 1987. 15. It is also submitted that this Court, while disposing of WP.No.13812 of 2023 directed the Commissioner, GVMC, to decide the matter without going into the disputed questions of fact, qua-title etc.. The petitioner challenged the WP.No.27480 of 2024 &CC.NO.1309 of 2025. building permission sanctioned to the 6th respondent. By virtue of an order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent has passed a well-reasoned and well-considered order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the 6*^’respondent submits that the impugned proceedings do not call for any interference as the 2"‘^respondent has not gone into any disputed questions of fact or ascertained the title of any party. All that is stated in the impugned proceedings is that the impugned order, as claimed by the petitioners, is not vitiated by lack of title of the 6‘^respondent, as the 6'^respondent has proved their case and title beyond a reasonable doubt. 17. The learned counsel for the 6‘^respondent places reliance on K.Pavan Raj Vs. M.C.H.rep.by its Commissioner & Ors.\ the learned single Judge of this Court held that once the Commissioner is prima facie satisfied about the title and possession of the applicant, the application for building permission would have to be considered on merits. Dr.M.Satchinadananda Rao Vs. State of Teiangana and Others^ the learned single Judge of High Court of Telangana considered a similar issue and held that the applicant should have possession of the property over which possession is claimed, and the term possession would not only include physical possession but also constructive possession. If the concerned authority is satisfied with the applicants’ 12008 (1)A.P.L.J.2(HC) 22021 SCCOnLineTS 1914 WP.No.27480 of 2024 &CC.NO.1309 of 2025 r' cpntrol/cystody of the property, the. permission for construction ought _to _be granted. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in the contempt case submits that by the date of passing of the interim orders, the property was not vacant as claimed by the petitioner and that a proper residential apartment complex, which is in the final stage of completion. 19. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, and learned counsel appearing for the 6‘^respondent. Perused the material on record. 20. The impugned order dated 29.05.2024, passed by the 2"'‘respondent, would refer to orders passed in WP.No.13812 of 2023, the hearing conducted on 06.04.2024, the common order passed in OS.No.167 of 1987 and OS.No.33 of 1983, dated 19.12.1990. Copy of proceedings of the Special Office and Competent Authority of ULC vide CC.No. 6(1)/B(4)/4844/76, common award LSA.No.419 of 2008, dated 09.06.2008 and ULC passed in clearance.RC.No.60 of 2023. 21. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2"'^respondent could not have granted permission to the 6‘'"respondent for the construction of a building based on the document submitted by the 6‘^respondent. The petitioners are disputing the title of the S^’respondent and claim that the 5‘^respondent could not have executed a development agreement cum GPA. 22. Insofar as the title of the property is concerned, neither the petitioners nor their vendors nor the 5*^respondent nor their vendors have adjudicated the WP.No.27480 of 2024 &CC.NO. 1309 of 2025 ■ issue of title on merits before any Court of law. The common judgment passed in OS.No.167 of 1987 and OS.No.33 of 1983 have not dealt with the title of the property. Possession of the property was considered, and whether the parties therein were entitled to an injunction was considered. 23. OS.No.121 of 2025 the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, is also filed by the petitioners herein claiming permanent on injunction against the defendants therein, including the 6th respondent herein. 24. The short point for consideration is Whether the impugned proceedings dated 29.05.2024 were passed exceeding the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 ? 25. The 2"‘^respondent has categorically held that the High Court or GVMC cannot decide the issue of title. However, has considered various documents submitted and passed a speaking order dated 29.05.2024 in terms of the directions of this Court granting an opportunity to the petitioner for hearing well as the 5*'’respondent therein in WP.No.13812 of 2023. 26. The 2"''respondent in the speaking order has only recorded the findings of the trial Court at para 28 of the common order in OS.No.167 of 1987 and OS.No.33 of 1983. This consideration cannot be held as giving a finding on the title of the property. The permission granted to the 6th respondent for construction was based on the development agreement dated 09.08.2012. The building permission was approved vide proceedings dated 14.07.2020. as I WP.N0.2748Q of 2024 &CC.NO.1309 of 2025 C 27. The learned counsel appearing for the e'^respondent also places reliance on the name of the Assessment proceedings for tax, which: stand in assessment proceedings would be issued only after the the S'^’respondent. The 2'"'* respondent had furnished the relevant documents. 26.11.2024 passed interim order by restraining the with the possession of the petitioners’ property TS.No.1031 of Visakhapatnam 28. This Court on respondents from interfering extent of 1743 Square Yards in by suspending the impugned order in Rc.No.e-office over an Municipal Corporation 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1, dated 29.05.2024 passed by the 2"« respondent By the date of passing of the pending disposal of the main writ petition, interim order the S* respondent had constructed a building and the entire extent of 1743 Square yards was not a me contention of the 6» respondent that the 6» respondent has proceeded after obtaining the requisite permission from the 2"“ vacant land. Thus, there is force in with the construction respondent. interfere with the impugned 6th respondent failed to consider the this Court finds no does not endorse the title claim over the the 5‘^espondent, as that would have to short point whether this Court can the ground that the 29. On the proceedings on representation of the petitioners in proper perspective grounds to interfere. This Court also property by either the petitioners or before the appropriate Court. It is pertinent to note that be redressed OS.No.121 of 2025 is also filed of building permission for mandatory injunction. Insofar as the grant the 2"‘^respondent to the is concerned by WP.No.27480 of 2024 - & ec.i\io.t309 Of 2025 6‘^respondent, the judgments relied 6‘^respondent would have to be upon by the learned counsel for the applied to the facts of this case. The 2"''respondent was prima facie satisfied with the title documents submitted by the 6th respondent for the grant of permission. Accordingly, the 6th respondent has constructed a building, and on account of the interim orders granted by this Court, further finishing works could not be completed. 30. On these considerations, this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the Court finds the order passed by the 2"'<respondent as within the power of the 2"-respondent and also in accordance with the directions of this Court speaking order passed by the 2"'^respondent, and this passed in WP.No.13812 of 2023. 31. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. As the writ petition is dismissed, the contempt case also dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri D. V. Ramana Murthy, Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Commissioner (GVMC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Chief City Planner, Greater Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) District. 3. Smt. K. Jhansi Lakshmi, Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Zone - Municipal Corporation (GVMC) 111, Greater Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. M/s Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by B. Nageswara Rao, Managing H.No. 10-38-22/6/1 m, Ramnagar, Revenue Ward No. 19, Director, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District ( 5. One CC to Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, Advocate’[OPUO 6. One CC to Sri A. S. C. Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri K.V.S.D. Ravi Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies. ssb » * HIGH eOURT DATED: 10/09/2025 COMMON ORDER WP No. 27480 OF 2024 & CC No.1309of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. & CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS