APHC010723952014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31517/2014 Between: Yedlapalli Veeraiah The State Of Ap Represented By Its Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K JAYA KUMAR 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 4. POTTI VENKATA RAMANA RAO The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31517/2014 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap Represented By Its Secretary and ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) POTTI VENKATA RAMANA RAO The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel For Municipalities 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....to pass an order of direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in regularizing the building bearing No 3-14-74, Nehru Road, Tenali under BPS scheme though it is violation of the norms of the BPS Scheme and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to demolish the building bearing No 3-14-74, Nehru Road, Tenali and to pass…” 02. Heard Sri P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Mrs.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 03. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 i.e., Municipal Commissioner, Tenali Municipality furnished a copy of instructions dated 13.02.2025, wherein it is stated that the Municipality has examined the BPS application of respondent Nos.4 and 5strictly as per the norms in G.O.Ms.No.901, M.A.Dept, dated 31.12.2007 and regularized the said building vide BPS No.1252/2008/G2, dated 15.11.2010 duly collecting penalization charges to an amount of Rs.3,65,700/-. 04. Recording the same, this Court is of the opinion that as the respondent authorities had followed due norms of the BPS Scheme, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3 Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 14.02.2025 KKV 4 100 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31517/2014 14.02.2025 KKV