APHC010298162022 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: 19164/2022 Between: Naval Civil And Non Technical Employees Co Operative House Building Society Ltd The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC) 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. A K KISHORE REDDY 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 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: 19164/2022 Naval Civil And Non Technical Employees Co Operative House Building Society Ltd AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC) A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) A K KISHORE REDDY GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 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.19164 OF 2022 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the housing society and has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to grant any building permit orders in favour of the respondents 7 and 8. The decision to grant building permit order is also under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/society has purchased the land admeasuring AC.22.48 cents forming part and parcel of RS.Nos.136, 138, 140, 144, 146 and 158 Pulagalipalem Village, Pendurthy Mandal and allotted about 446 plots. It is submitted that such allotment could have been possible only if the extent of land was about Ac.40.00 of land. 3. It is alleged that the then President of the Society, in the year 1993 had fraudulently allotted an excess number of plots. It is submitted that the petitioner made representations to the respondent authorities not to grant any building permission in favour of respondents 7 and 8 in respect of the land situated in RS.Nos.136, 138, 140, 144, 146 and 158 Pulagalipalem Village, Pendurthy Mandal. A representation dated 24.05.2022 was also submitted, which was not acted upon by the 2nd respondent. 4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter, while the other respondents have not filed their counters. Sri.A.S.C.Bose, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the layout itself is unapproved and that the grievance of the petitioner against the former President relating to 3 incidents which allegedly happened in the year 1993 cannot be raised in a writ petition filed in the year 2022. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent is duty-bound to consider the applications for grant of building permission and, subject to the applications being in order and accompanied by the requisite fee and documents, the respondent authority is required to issue permissions in accordance with law. It is submitted that the prayer sought by the petitioner is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, and therefore, such requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 6. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a relief of declaration directing the 2nd respondent to act contrary to provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is evidently against the former President who according to the petitioner, formed an unapproved layout and sold plots to about 446 allottees. It is also evident that none of the said allottees are made party respondents in the present writ petition, though any order passed in the present writ petition would have a direct bearing on the rights of the third parties who ever purchased the plots. 8. The submission of the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent is duty bound to consider the pending applications for building permission, submitted along with the applicable fee and the 4 required documents, merits acceptance. The 2nd respondent is required to process such applications and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme. 9. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties and for the reason that no direction can be issued by this Court compelling the 2nd respondent to act contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 5 316 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.19164 OF 2022 Dated 04.12.2025 KGM