SMT. J.VIMALA KUMARI, v. PRL.SECY., M.A. & U.D., HYD., & ANOTHER,
WP/22818/2014 · 2025-01-29
V Sujatha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38882 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38882 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010780232014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22818/2014 Between: Smt. J.vimala Kumari, ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy M A U D Hyd Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA)
3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:
“…to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders in Rc.No.11693/2007/I-1/ANN-1/26 dated 3.7.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the allotment of alternative site is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and one without jurisdiction and to consequently set aside the same…”
2. On 12.08.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “The validity of an order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the Vice-Chairman of the 2nd respondent is challenged in this writ petition. The learned Standing counsel has not been able to show any provision in the statue i.e., The A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 empowering the Vice-Chairman to pass the said order. Certain allegations of irregular exercise of powers by the Officials of HUDA in 2009 are made. In this view of the matter, Status quo in all respects shall be maintained by both sides in respect of the subject land. There shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, but however, it shall not preclude the 2nd respondent from initiating civil proceedings for cancellation of registration of the subject plots before the jurisdictional civil Court. The petitioner shall not make any alienation or create any third party interest in respect of the land purchased by him.”
3. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4.
Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned standing Counsel submitted written instructions, wherein it is stated that the respondents have
already filed Civil Suit vide O.S.No.778 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein to the extent Plot Nos.106, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 122 in Sy.No.370 of Madhurawada, Plot Nos.5 and 9 in Sy.No.127 of Madhurawada and Plot Nos.255, 259-A in Sy.No.34 and 35 of Rushikonda Village. 5. On perusal of the said instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, it is clear that even without cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents have cancelled the allotment which in fact should have been done after cancellation of the sale deed. However, in view of the fact that the respondents have already filed civil Suit vide O.S.No.778 of 2015 seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 cancelling the allotment is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings i.e., R.C.No.11693/2007/I-1/Ann-1/26, Dt.03.07.2014. However, cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.778 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The concerned Civil Court is directed to decide the civil suit pending before it on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed this Court in the present writ petition. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 29.01.2025 JLV
253 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
W.P.No.22818 of 2014 Dt.29.01.2025
JLV