APHC010699822016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25008/2016 Between: K. Vidyasagar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented By Its Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to pass an order or direction or writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by duly declaring action of the third respondent in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the civil suit is pending, in spite of Honourable High Court directions in WP No. 25612/2015 as well as WP No. 3767/2016, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the impugned resolution number 568 dated 31-03-2016 and cancel the permission vide No. 115/2015/G2, dated 07-08-2015 granted in favour of fourth respondent and direct the second respondent to remove the structures built by virtue of the said sanction in the interest of justice and to pass such other and further orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…” 2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he has earlier filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.No.25612 of 2015 challenging the building permission granted in favour of the 4th respondent which was disposed of directing the Municipal Council to consider the appeal, if filed by the petitioner by duly giving notice to respondent No.3 therein. As such, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Municipal Council under Section 345(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. However, vide endorsement dated 21.10.2015, the respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner that he may get his right over the property declared in the civil suit filed by him vide O.S.No.140 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. 3. Challenging the said endorsement dated 21.10.2015, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.3767 of 2016 wherein, this Court has set-aside the endorsement dated 21.10.2015 by duly directing the 2nd respondent to place the petitioner’s appeal before the Municipal council and to give the petitioner and the third party in whose favour building permission was granted an opportunity of personal hearing and to take an appropriate decision. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that, in spite of there being a direction from this Court, the 3rd respondent herein vide resolution No.568, dated 31.03.2016 has rejected the petitioner’s appeal stating as under: “As per the orders of Honourable High courts orders in WP No.3767/16, after considering the contentions in the appeal and on hearing the both sides, and on perusing the municipal records, it is decided to resolve to reject the appeal as it is not appealable and because there is land dispute between the two parties in OS No. 140/2015 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.” 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution dated 31.03.2016, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing counsel for Respondent Corporation. 6. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be understood that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.12609 of 2015 alleging that the 4th respondent is making illegal construction by encroaching into his land and without obtaining due permission. Thereafter, the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.22850 of 2015 alleging that his application dated 02.03.2015 seeking permission to construct building was rejected earlier due to the complaint given by the petitioner wherein, the 4th respondent was directed to resubmit the application for conducting survey by the town surveyor. A survey was conducted and along with the survey report, the 4th respondent has submitted an application on 16.05.2015 to the Municipality requesting to process the application and pending the same, this Court disposed of both the writ petitions by way of a common order dated 23.07.2015 wherein W.P.No.22850 of 2015 was disposed of directing the respondent municipality to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law. The writ petition filed by the petitioner herein i.e. W.P.No.12609 of 2015 was closed as no further orders are necessary since the 4th respondent has already applied for revised building plan. Thereafter, the 4th respondent was granted permission on 07.08.2015 pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on resubmission of building application. Challenging the said action of the respondent authorities in granting permission to the 4th respondent, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.25612 of 2015, wherein this Court has passed the following order on 13.08.2015: “8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal or any other alternative remedy as available in law, aggrieved by the building permission granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. Since the suit is already pending, it is also open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the competent Court. 9. If the petitioner files an appeal, the Municipal Council shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of the appeal, after putting the 3rd respondent on notice. As seen from the order passed by this Court, this Court has only directed to consider the application in accordance with law and there was no direction to grant building permission. Therefore, the appellate authority shall consider all the objections as stated by the petitioner.” 7. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has filed an application before the respondent municipality on 21.10.2015 which was rejected by the 2nd respondent without placing it before the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.3767 of 2016 wherein this Court has passed the following order on 08.02.2016: “In the above view of the matter, the impugned endorsement, 21.10.2015, of respondent No.2, is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to place the petitioner’s appeal before the Municipal Council and the latter shall give the petitioner and the third party in whose favour building permission was granted, an opportunity of personal hearing and take an appropriate decision. The Municipal Council shall complete this process within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 8. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent pursuant to the aforesaid orders, vide resolution No.568, dated 31.03.2016 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner as it is not appealable and as there is land dispute between the two parties in O.S.No.140 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. But, it is apparent on the face of the record that the said suit is filed by the petitioner for declaration and perpetual and mandatory injunction against the 4th respondent herein whereas the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent is with regard to the permission granted in favour of the 4th respondent. The appeal was filed by the petitioner not with regard to the land dispute, but, it is filed challenging the sanction accorded to the 4th respondent without following the rules laid down in law. As such, it is clear that the 3rd respondent failed to understand the grounds on which the suit and the appeal were filed. 9. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration of the appeal keeping in view the aforesaid discussion. Further, the impugned resolution No.568, dated 31.03.2016 is set-aside. 10. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:13.02.2025 Gss