i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28840 OF 2024 Between: Pasupula Mahesh, S/o. Late Krishnayya, Aged 46 years, R/o. D.No.3-225/1 Sarada Nagar, 2nd Line, Balighattam, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Represented by Commissioner, Near RTC complex, Visakhapatnam 3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam ''' 4. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam 5. M/s. M.V.V. Builders (Developers), A Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri. M.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Raghunaikulu Having Office at MIG-26, D.No.4-62-1, Plot No.21, Lawsons Bay ^ Colony, Visakhapatnam its ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 2"'^ Respondent in cancelling the Building Plan Approval vide Permit No.1086/7069/B/Z2/KDI/2021, dt.22.06.2022 issued of the 5'*^ Respondent with respect to land admeasuring in favour an extent of 9- 2829.23 sq.meters bearing Patta No.595 in S.No.2 in Madhurawada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Limits, Visakhapatnam District i> pursuant to the Speaking Order dated and Rules thereof as illegal. _-10-2024 being contrary to the Act arbitrary. unreasonable unfair, unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and consequentlydirect the 2nd Respondents to cancel the Building Plan Approval vide Permit NO.1086/7069/B/Z2/KDI/2021, dt.22.06.2022 issued in favour of the 5*'^ ' Respondent with respect to land admeasuring an extent of 2829.23 sq.meters bearing Patta No.595 in S.No.2 in Madhurawada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Limits, Visakhapatnam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2^'^ Respondent to immediately stop all further construction by the 5'^ Respondent in pursuance of the Building Plan Approval vide Permit N0.1086/7069/B/Z2/KDI/2021, dt.22.06.2022 issued in favour of the 5‘^ Respondent with respect to land admeasuring an extent of 2829.23 sq.meters bearing Patta No.595 in S.No.2 in Madhurawada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Limits, Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioner :M/S SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 2: SRI A S C BOSE, SC FOR ^ MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONX Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 3 & 4; GP FOR REVENUE ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.5: M/S CKR ASSOCIATES The Court made the following ORDER; ^ APHC010552822024 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: 28840/2024 Between: Pasupula Mahesh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.CKR ASSOCIATES 3.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 4.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief; “...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2'^^Respondent in cancelling the Building Plan Approval vide Permit No. 1086/7069/B/Z2/KD1/2021 dt. 22.06.2022 issued in favour of the 5^'^Respondent with respect to land admeasuring an extent of 2829.23 sq meters bearing Patta No. 595 Visakhapatnam Municipal Limits, Visakhapatnam District pursuant to the Speaking Order dated ...10.2024 being contrary to the Act and Rules thereof as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and consequently direct the 2"^^Respondents to cancel the Building Plan Approval vide Permit No.1086/7069/B/Z2/KDI/2021, dt. 22.06.2022 issued in favour of the 5^^ Respondent with respect to land admeasuring an extent of 2829.23 sq. meters bearing Patta No. 595 in S.No.2 in Madhurawada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Limits, Visakhapatnam District... ” S.No.2 in Madhurawada Village, Greater in 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that one Pusapati Devavarma was the absolute owner of 3000 sq yards of land bearing Patta No.585 in S.No.2 Madhurawada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam. After his demise, the property devolved upon his grandson, Pusapati Narayana Murthy Raju. The Petitioner and Smt. Thanniru Venkata Ramana entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 31-10-2016 with the said Pusapati Narayana Murthy Raju for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. However, the agreement was not honored. compelling the Petitioner to file O.S.No.116/2021 before the XII Additional f District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking specific performance or alternative ^ relief. A compromise led to a Lok Adalat award (L.S.A.No. 555/2021, dated 13-08-2021), wherein the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration. While steps were being taken for registration, Pusapati Narayana Murthy Raju passed away, leading the Petitioner to file an Execution Petition against his legal representatives, which remains pending. As things stood thus, the 5‘^ Respondent and others began construction on the subject property bearing Patta No.85, claiming ownership. The Petitioner objected and, upon inquiry, came to know that the 5'^ Respondent had fraudulently obtained Building Permit No.1086/7069/B/Z2/KDI/2021, dated Respondent for a G+5 construction under a Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 11-08-2021, allegedly executed by 10 landowners contrary to the Lok Adalat Award. Further inquiry revealed that the 5‘^ Respondent altered Patta No.585 to Patta No.595 in registered Sale Deeds and the Development Agreement-cum-GPA while maintaining the boundaries of Patta No.585, without there being any right of title over the subject property. 4. nd 22-06-2022, from the 2 In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation on 12.02.2024 to the 2^'^ respondent requesting to cancel the building permission granted in favour of the 5‘^ respondent. But no action has been taken by the respondents. Challenging the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9338 of 2024 before this Court and thi^^ourt vide order dated 5. ^ 13.04.2024 disposed of the writ petition directing the concerned Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the representation dt. 12.02.2024 in accordance with law by giving proper notices to all the parties concerned including the unofficial respondent, within a period of three months. Consequently, a notice Rc.No.1086/7069/B/Z2/KDI/2021was issued on 19-09-2024, summoning all parties on 21-09-2024. After inquiry, the 2^^ Respondent, vide speaking order dated -10-2024, confirmed that the property falls under Patta No.585, not Patta No.595, and assured action against the 5*'^ Respondent as per Rules, G.Os, and the Act. Complaining the action of the 2^^ respondent in not taking appropriate steps in stopping the said constructions and cancelling the building permission in pursuance to the speaking orders dated -10-2024, the present writ petition is filed. The 5*'^ respondent has filed a detailed counter stating that in pursuance to the proceedings issued by the 2'^^ respondent on October, 2024, there has been correspondence between the 2"^^ respondent and the 5‘^ respondent and further certain developments in terms of registration of a supplementary deed, rectification deed, application of revised building plan, representations and 6. correspondence have been taken place between the petitioner and the office of the 2'^'^ respondent. But the petitioner rushed to this Court as if the respondents are not taking any action on the representation of the writ petitioner. It is further stated that after passing of the speaking order in the month of October, 2024, the 5‘^ respondent on a p^jy^sal of the sale deed dated 7. 24.06.1970 have identified that the property under construction falls within the ^ property covered by patta No.585. But however, due to typographical error in the said sale deed it is referred as patta No.595 on the second page, while in the first page it is correctly mentioned as patta No.585. To rectify the same, the 5"^ respondent executed a rectification deed dated 21.12.2024 amending the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 13.08.2021 (Document No.5683/2021) reflecting the correct patta number. Thereafter, the 5*^ respondent has submitted representations on 17.12.2024 and 03.01.2025 to the 2'"^ respondent duly enclosing the rectification deed requesting them not to initiate any further action in pursuance of the said proceedings duly taking into consideration the registered rectification deed filed by them. It is also their case that the said representations are pending for consideration before the 2''^ respondent. As can be seen from the counter affidavit, the 5**^ respondent herein immediately after receiving the said impugned proceedings dated Nil.10.2024 has responded to the same and rectified the number of the patta as Patta No.585 vide rectification deed dated 21.12.2024 amending the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 13.08.2021 (document No.5683/2021). Thereafter, they have submitted representation to respondent No.2 duly enclosing the rectification deed dated 21.12.2024 requesting not to initiate any further action in pursuance of the said rectification deed and the 8. same is pending for consideration before respondent No.2. As action has already been initiated in pursuance of the said impugned proceedings, this f Court is of the opinion that no further cause survives. However, it is open to the 2^^ respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. Sd/- J. SAROJA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER To, M/S SODUM ANVESHA, Advocate [OPUC] A S C BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL 1. OneCCto SRI 2. One CC to CORPORATION, Advocate [OPUC] M/S CKR ASSOCIATES [OPUC] / MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, Higji 3. OneCCto 4. Two CCs to GP FOR Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.28840 of 2024 * 01 APR 2025 Current Section . ^ CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS