APHC010114472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5731/2025 Between: Anupana Vasu Deva Reddy The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SAKETH ROY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALEEMULLA S 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5731/2025 Anupana Vasu Deva Reddy AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.5731 OF 2025 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2024 and subsequent proceedings dated 10.02.2025 by the 2nd respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased Plot No.169 admeasuring 200 square yards on 15.04.1994. It is submitted that the petitioner has been assessed for property tax and has been paying the applicable taxes to the 2nd respondent ever since the purchase. It is submitted further that the petitioner applied for building permission and paid an amount of Rs.4,35,217/- for construction of a house in the property purchased by him, pursuant to which a building permit order dated 20.05.2024 was issued. However, vide the impugned endorsement, the petitioner was informed about the pendency of case vide WP.No.19164 of 2022 duly intimating the petitioner that the petitioner’s building permission will be perused and appropriate action shall be taken after the outcome of the said writ petition. 3. This Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 suspended the impugned proceedings dated 10.02.2025 and permitted the petitioner to continue with the construction activity. The 6th respondent has filed an implead petition, which was allowed by this Court, along with a vacate petition filed by the 6th respondent. 3 4. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the allegations of the fraud committed by the erstwhile President were duly considered by the Joint Registrar, Visakhapatnam, who, vide order dated 07.06.2024, initiated an enquiry under Section 51 of the AP Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. It is also submitted that a case in Crime No.764 of 2018 was registered against the erstwhile President at the instance of the person-in- charge/ 6th respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent further submits that the OP.No.6 of 2024 is pending on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the petition under Section 23 of AP Cooperative Societies Act and Registration Act, 2011 is filed against the petitioner seeking the relief of permanent and prohibitory injunction against the respondent therein (writ petitioner herein) from interfering with the entire extent of Ac.22.48 cents of land. It is submitted that, in view of the pendency of the said dispute and adjudication of OP.No.6 of 2024, the 2nd respondent ought not to have issued any building permission to the petitioner, after duly considering the legal notice issued by the 6th respondent, rightly issued the impugned proceedings. 6. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent has also filed a counter and submits that the impugned proceedings are issued after receipt of a legal notice and upon taking into account of pendency of OP.No.6 of 2024 and WP.No.19164 of 2022. It is also admitted in the counter of the 2nd respondent that the building permission was granted 4 after verification of the title documents. It is further stated in the counter that the unauthorized layout would be approved in pursuance of the Government Memo dated 25.03.2022 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the enquiry was initiated under Section 51 of the Act and has since been concluded and a report was also submitted to the Joint Registrar, Visakhapatnam, whereby, certain observations against the person-in- incharge/ 6th respondent are also made in the report, apart from making several recommendations. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and also the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 9. Though the impugned proceedings refer to the pendency of WP.No.19164 of 2022, and this Court has dismissed the said writ petition. That apart, on perusal of the prayer in OP.No.6 of 2024, it is evident that the 6th respondent has sought for the permanent injunction against the writ petitioner and the schedule property is appears to be the entire extent of Ac.22.48 cents. The title of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents. No material is placed before this Court to prima facie establish that any suit for cancellation of sale deed is pending or that any interim orders have been pending in that regard. In the absence of any material which would cast a cloud on the title of the petitioner, the 6th 5 respondent cannot interject and seek for reliefs which cannot be granted. On this consideration the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 6 317 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.5731 OF 2025 Dated 04.12.2025 KGM