-1- W.P. No.13214 OF 2025 Date of order: 03.11.2025 APHC010257592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13214/2025 Between: M/s. Pruthvi Adithya Infratecli Pvt.ltd., ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. K NARSI REDDY The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.13214 OF 2025 Date of order: 03.11.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.13214 OF 2025 ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 12.03.2025, whereby the petitioner sought action against respondents 3 and 4 for preparing an illegal layout and selling away the plots in an unauthorised and unapproved layout. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- to respondents 3 and 4 and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.11.2025 for the development of land admeasuring Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 of Akkarampalli Village, Chandragiri Taluka, Tirupati Mandal. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed O.S. No. 66 of 2023 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, seeking specific performance of the said Memorandum of Understanding, arraying respondents 3 and 4 as defendants in the suit, wherein the learned Additional District Judge granted interim injunction. While the injunction was in subsistence, the respondents have resorted to sell away some properties. It is also submitted that the petitioner also filed a contempt petition against the acts of the respondents 3 and 4. During the pendency of the suit, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the 1st defendant in the suit, sought to settle the dispute and offered to refund the advance amount along with -3- W.P. No.13214 OF 2025 Date of order: 03.11.2025 interest and as such, the 1st defendant issued three cheques dated 30.09.2024, two cheques for Rs.50,00,000/- each and third cheque for Rs.58,47,000/-. Upon receipt of these cheques, the petitioner had not pressed the suit against the 1st defendant. However, the said cheques were dishonoured, leading the petitioner to file a private complaint before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, which is yet to be taken on file. Subsequently, the petitioner has taken steps to restore the suit against the 1st defendant on account of subsequent developments after issuance of the cheques towards the settlement. 3. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent had issued a notice dated 19.08.2024 against the illegal and unauthorized layout prepared by respondents 3 and 4. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 3 and 4 have filed W.P. No.19026 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court on 02.09.2024, directing the 2nd respondent to consider their explanation and pass appropriate orders against the notice dated 19.08.2024. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition and had the petitioner been heard, the subsequent order dated 27.01.2025 could not have been passed by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner would place all relevant material before the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration regarding the grant of layout approval or regularization of the plots. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner is a third party and has no connection with the grievances -4- W.P. No.13214 OF 2025 Date of order: 03.11.2025 raised by respondents 3 and 4 in W.P. No.19026 of 2024. It is further submitted that respondents 3 and 4 have sold the plots to third parties and by virtue of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent, the plot owners can explore the opportunity of regularizing their plots under the Layout Regularisation Scheme whenever a fresh LRS is introduced. It is submitted that the Government has introduced LRS vide G.O.Ms. No.134, dated 26.07.2025 and that several plot owners have already applied for regularization of their plots. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on written instructions, submits that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P. No.19026 of 2024, an enquiry was conducted on 03.01.2025 and that respondents 3 and 4 attended the enquiry and submitted the relevant ownership documents. It was verified that 73 plots were sold, vacant land tax was paid for 24 plots and 15 plot owners have applied for building permission, out of which 3 applications were approved and 12 applications are pending due to shortfall. 6. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent is not in a position to consider any fresh layout approval since the plots have already been sold and it is for the individual plot owners to apply for regularization under the relevant LRS as and when the scheme is introduced. 7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation, the 2nd -5- W.P. No.13214 OF 2025 Date of order: 03.11.2025 respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and perused the record. 8. The grievance of the petitioner seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent not to regularize the unauthorised layout and constructions raised by respondents 3 and 4 over the land admeasuring Ac.4.74 cents and inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent against such constructions are concerned, the petitioner has already filed a suit seeking the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount with interest. It is also evident from the additional material filed by the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent issued three cheques - two for Rs.50,00,000/- each and one for Rs.58,47,000/- towards settlement and refund of the amount paid by the petitioner to respondents 3 and 4. Further, the petitioner has also initiated a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the competent Magistrate Court on account of the dishonour of the said cheques. The grievance of the petitioner would have to be considered with reference to his investment and the Memorandum of Understanding entered into with respondents 3 and 4. The said issue is pending consideration before the competent District Court. The alternative prayer of the petitioner seeking refund of the amount advanced with interest would adequately cover the claim of the petitioner. 9. Without determining the applicability or otherwise of the memorandum of understanding and its terms, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it -6- W.P. No.13214 OF 2025 Date of order: 03.11.2025 open for the petitioner to raise all the grounds as raised in the writ petition seeking recovery or the other reliefs before the trial court in the pending suit. No costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV