APHC010544062024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 28168/2024 Between: 1. CHITTEM CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, , S/O. CH. KONDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. LAKSHMIPURAM(V) VEPAGUNTA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL COPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, G.V.M.C., ASILMETTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, ZONE-8, G.V.M.C.,VEPAGUNTA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM-47. 5. THE ASST CITY PLANNER, ZONE-8, G.V.M.C.,VEPAGUNTA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM-47. 6. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ZONE-8, G.V.M.C.,VEPAGUNTA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM-47. 7. THE WARD PLANNING SECRETARY, WARD SACHIVALAYAM-501, LAKSHMIPURAM(V), VEPAGUNTA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM-47. 2 8. BODDETI NOOKA RAJU, S/O.CHINNA APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.2-73/1, SAIRAM STREET, CHINTALA AGRAHARAM, LAKSHMIPURAM(V), VEPAGUNTA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.3 to 7 in interfering with the petitioner’s construction over land admeasuring 103.78 square meters and an extent of 98.23 square meters in Survey No.68/21 of Lakshmipuram Village, Visakhapatnam. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on written instructions submits that the town planning staff were instructed to visit the construction site after the 2nd respondent received a complaint from one Sri Boddeti Nookaraju alleging encroachment of the road by the petitioner. The town planning staff observed that the petitioner was constructing in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that there was no encroachment of the public road. As such, there is no interference from the respondents’ side. It is also stated that any encroachments of the public road, the respondent will have the right to take appropriate action. 3. Recording the submissions, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory application pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 12.09.2025 SR