1 APHC010571832014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23224/2014 Between: Thupakula Venkata Padmavathi, ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B D MAHESWARA REDDY 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 4. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 5. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA 2 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 a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action against the 4th respondent for constructing the house without permission on the complaint dated 06.08.2014 of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No 3 to stop the illegal construction being made by the 4th respondent in Door No.4-8-12/2, Sy.No.31/2, 25th Ward Repalle Town, Guntur District…” 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.3, has furnished a copy of instructions dated 02.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the unofficial respondent No.4 has obtained building permission from the Commissioner, Repalle Municipality in B.A.No.52/2014/G1 dated 21.07.2014 and the same was informed to the petitioner vide Endorsement dated 07.08.2014 in pursuance of the complaint made by the petitioner on 06.08.2014. On physical verification by the Commissioner on 02.09.2014, it was observed that respondent No.4 has completed the construction up to basement level and there is no deviation to the approved plan. Therefore, provisional order No.7/9/2014 in B.A.No.52/7/2014 was issued to respondent No.4 and again confirmation order No.7/9/2014 was also issued to him on 10.09.2014. It is further submitted that after scrutiny of the said documents filed by respondent No.4, 3 building plan was sanctioned in his favour. After obtaining the said building plan only respondent No.4 has started construction work. 3. In view of the said instructions, it can be understood that respondent No.4 has made construction in the said land only after obtaining proper building permission from respondent No.3 herein. 4. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 03.01.2025 JLV