1 APHC010544232014 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: 36062/2014 Between: Nekkanti Venkat Rao ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap Prl Scy M A D Hyd 3 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 & 3 are in trying to dispossess petitioner from her plot in an extent of 1000 sq. yards covered in patta No. 5 survey No. 11 situated at Hazisahebpet, Vizianagaram Municipality without notice and without following the due process of law in spite of having registered sale deed dated 15.9.2005 bearing No. 7756/2005 and patta bearing No. 5 as being illegal arbitrary and as being violative of principles of natural justice and fair play besides principles of promissory estoppel and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from petitioner land in an extent of 1000 sq. yards or 836 12 sq. meters covered in patta No. 5 survey No. 11 situated at Hazisahebpet Vizianagaram Municipality without following the due process of law and pass such order or orders …” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, having purchased the same from one Suryanarayanamma under registered sale deed document No.7756/2005, dated 15.09.2005. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any interference from third parties. However, when the petitioner visited the subject site, he came to know that the 4th respondent was making arrangements for sale of house site plots in Sy.No.11 & 20/1, situated at Hazisahebpet, Vizianagaram Mandal and District, claiming that they had obtained layout permission under L.P.No.35 of 2009 from the office of respondents 2 & 3. Subsequently, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents 2 & 3 that the said layout plan had been made, covering his land to an extent of 1000 Sq. yards in Sy.No.11. 3 But, under the influence of the 4th respondent, the authorities, without verifying the title or relevant documents, without issuing notice to the concerned parties, and without following the rules contemplated under the law, approved the layout plan, and thereby attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. 3. On 25.11.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court after hearing the submissions, passed the following order: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. A. Sridevi, learned Standing Counsel for R-2 and R-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to R-4 by RPAD and file proof of service. Learned Standing Counsel for R-2 and R-3 states that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. She submits that the 4th respondent might be doing so. In this view of the matter, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 4. Heard Sri N. Manikanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. When the matter came up for hearing today, learned Standing Counsel for Corporation, submitted a copy of the written instruction dated 22.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the layout i.e., L.P.No.35/2009 to an extent of Ac.11.53 cents covered in Sy.No.11/p & 20/1P of Hazisahebpet (V) Vizianagaram Taluk, Vizianagram District was approved in favour of M/s Indur Developers & Agencies Private Limited, not in favour of M.s. Kapil Homes. Further it is stated in the written instructions that though the layout was approved around 16 years ago, the authorities will not dispossess any person from their lands particularly the land to an 4 extent of 1000.00 Sq. yards or 836.12 Sq. mts covered in Sy.No. 11 of Hazisahebpet Vizianagram Mandal and District. As such, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess him from his plot to an extent of 1000 Sq. yards in Sy.No.11, situated at Hazisahpet Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. As per the said instructions, it appears that the layout plan was approved around 16 years ago and that the authorities have not dispossessed any person from the subject property. As the authorities are not interfering with the subject property, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of 1000 Sq. yards in Sy.No.11 situated at Hazisahpet Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District, except by following due procedure contemplated under law. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.01.2025 ANS 5 288 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36062/2014 Date: 23.01.2025 ANS