1 APHC010168092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos: 8567, 8569, 8571 & 8573 of 2024 W.P.No.8567 of 2024: Between: 1. CHEYTUN BUILDERS, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER DASARI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.FLATNO.40I, K.S. TOWERS, MIG-29, DHARMAREDDY COLONY, PHASE-II, HYDER NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, T.S. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2. THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, D.NO 60-5-1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, POLYCLINIC RD, MOGALRAJAPURAM, KEDARESWARAPETA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA,ANDHRAPRADESH- 520010. 3. TIYYAGURA SUDHAKARA REDDY, S/O. T. PRABHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.FLAT NO.404, VIBHA RESIDENCY, DHARANI HOMES STREET, 2 OPP. VISWASANTHI SCHOOL, KATURU ROAD, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. NANDIVADA NAGESWARA PRASAD, S/O.N. VENKATA GURUNADHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.70-1-3, VARAPRASAD NILAYAM, RAMALAYAM STREET, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MASALEGAR HIDAYATHULLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. SRINIVASULA REDDY KOMMASANI 3. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP W.P.No.8569 of 2024: Between: 1. M/S. CHEYTUN BUILDERS,, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER DASARI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.FLATNO.401, K.S. TOWERS, MIG-29, DHARMAREDDY COLONY, PHASE-II, HYDER NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, T.S. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2. THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, D.NO- 60-5-1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, POLYCLINIC RD, MOGALRAJAPURAM, 3 KEDARESWARAPETA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. 3. YERRABOLU BALA JAGADISH REDDY, S/O. Y.L. REDDY, AGE AND OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,R/O.D.NO.8-3- 169/136,FLAT NO. 102, SAI RAM APARTMENTS, SIDDARTH NAGAR, VENGALARAO NAGAR, HYDERABAD, T.S. - 500 038. 4. NANDIVADA VENKATA GURUNADHA RAO, S/O. N. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO. 12-460, BYPASS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. VANIPETA VENKATA SUBBULU ALIAS SUBBULU, W/O. V. OBULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.61-15-3/2, V.M.R. ROAD, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. MEDAPATI URAGA SAINA REDDY, S/O. SATYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC-NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.8-3-320/1/8, FLAT NO. 103, SAI KRISHNA RESIDENCY, SAI SARATH NAGAR, BEHIND SARADHI STUDIO, YELLAREDDYGUDA, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 7. BHOGESWARA RAO TUMMALA, S/O. RAGHAVAIAH TUMMALA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.6-61, FLAT NO.FL, DEVI PLAZA, SEZ CENTRE, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, N.T.R. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MASALEGAR HIDAYATHULLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. SRINIVASULA REDDY KOMMASANI 3. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP 4 W.P.No.8571 of 2024: Between: 1. M/S. CHEYTUN BUILDERS,, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER DASARI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.FLAT NO.401, K.S. TOWERS, MIG- 29, DHARMAREDDY COLONY, PHASE-II, HYDER NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, T.S ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2. THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, D.NO- 60-5-1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, POLYCLINIC RD, MOGALRAJAPURAM, KEDARESWARAPETA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. 3. BOMMAREDDY CHANDRAHASA REDDY, S/O. B.K.N. MURALIDHARA REDDY, AGE AND OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.FLAT NO.105, LAKSHMI TOWERS, OPP. RTC BUS STAND, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. NANDIVADA VENKATA GURUNADHA RAO, S/O. N. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.12-460, BYPASS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. VANIPETA VENKATA SUBBULU ALIAS SUBBULU, W/O. V. OBULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.61-15-3/2, V.M.R. ROAD, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. MEDAPATI URAGA SAINA REDDY, S/O. SATYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.8-3-320/1/8, FLAT NO.103, SAI KRISHNA RESIDENCY, SAI SARATH NAGAR, BEHIND SARADHI STUDIO, YELLAREDDYGUDA, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 5 7. BHOGESWARA RAO TUMMALA, S/O. RAGHAVAIAH TUMMALA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.6-61, FLAT NO.F1, DEVI PLAZA, SEZ CENTRE, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, N.T.R. DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MASALEGAR HIDAYATHULLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASULA REDDY KOMMASANI 2. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP W.P.No.8573 of 2024: Between: 1. M/S. CHEYTUN BUILDERS,, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER DASARI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.FLAT NO.401, K.S. TOWERS, MIG- 29, DHARMAREDDY COLONY, PHASE-II, HYDER NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, T.S. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2. THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, D.NO- 60-5-1, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, POLYCLINIC RD, MOGALRAJAPURAM, KEDARESWARAPETA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. 3. MALLIREDDY RAMADEVI, W/O. M. RAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 6 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.1- 23,NANDIVADA, JANARDHANAPURAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. NANDIVADA VENKATA GURUNADHA RAO, S/O. N. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC- NOT ICNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO. 12-460, BYPASS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. VANIPETA VENKATA SUBBULU ALIAS SUBBULU, W/O. V. OBULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC- NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.D.NO.61-15-3/2, V.M.R. ROAD, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MASALEGAR HIDAYATHULLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. SRINIVASULA REDDY KOMMASANI 3. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP The Court made the following: ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Counsel appearing online on behalf of Sri M. Hidayathulla, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri Gadipudi Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel representing M/s. Leo Law Associates LLP and Sri A. Ram Dheeraj, learned Counsel representing Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Common Order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Vijayawada on 24.01.2024 in Complaint/CP Nos.48/2022, 90/2023, 91/2023 & 96/2023. 7 3. At the beginning of the hearing, this Court had informed the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that since the Appellate Authority has already been constituted, the Writ Petitioner might like to withdraw these Writ Petitions, whereupon this Court would grant liberty to file a Statutory Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submitted that the present Common Order dated 24.01.2024 is being challenged in the present Writ Petitions on the ground of violation of principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner had filed its response only in C.P.No.48/2022 but no opportunity was given by the Authority in the other Complaints bearing C.P.Nos.90/2023, 91/2023 & 96/2023. After hearing for some time, this Court had directed Sri A. Ram Dheeraj, learned Counsel representing the Authority to obtain copies of the Docket Orders for the last few dates when the Tribunal had considered these Complaints namely on 11.12.2023 and 22.01.2024. 4. It transpires from record that C.P.No.48/2022 is filed in the year 2022 and the Writ Petitioner, who was arrayed as Respondent No.1 therein, had the opportunity to enter appearance for the said Complaint and file response. It is recorded in the Docket Order dated 11.12.2023 that in C.P.Nos.90, 91 & 96 of 2023, the Respondent No.1 (Writ Petitioner herein) had filed vakalat through Sri Ch. Vishnu Vardhana Rao. It is also recorded that on behalf of Respondent No.5, one Sri V. Nirmal Rajesh Babu filed Vakalatnama. Having noted the same, the Authority had further directed the Counsel to submit the response and posted the matter to 22.01.2024 indicating that if the response is not filed, the Authority will pass a Common Order basing on the documents and pleadings in C.P.No.48/2022. 5. This Order would indicate that more than a month’s time was granted to the Writ Petitioner to file its response. Admittedly, no response has been filed by the Writ Petitioner in C.P.Nos.90, 91 & 96 of 2023. On 22.01.2024, as scheduled, the Complaints were listed and the Authority had pronounced the Order. The Order dated 11.12.2023 clearly indicated that if the Writ Petitioner does not file the response, the Authority would pass Orders based on the 8 pleadings in C.P.No.48/2022. The impugned Order would also indicate that the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioner by way of Counter Affidavit in C.P.No.48/22 had also been noted at pages 8, 11, 15 & 16. 6. Having noted all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the Authority has not violated the principles of Natural Justice. It cannot be said that the Writ Petitioner was left unheard when sufficient opportunity has already been granted by the Authority. It is a settled law that a party cannot take undue advantage of its own wrongs. In the present case, the Writ Petitioner did not file its response even when the opportunity was granted and therefore, cannot complain of violation of principles of Natural Justice. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain these Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:07.11.2025 Vns