APHC010069352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 3815/2024 Between: Marada Appala Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR 2. K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.3815 of 2024 ORDER: This petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in trying to lay a road at the instance of the politically motivated neighbours of the Petitioner in his Private site of an extent of 555 Sq.Yds situated in Sy.No.9/3 Part of Chinna Waltair Village, Municipal Ward-19, Sector 11, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the land admeasuring Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.9/3 of China Waltair Village, Municipal Ward No.19, Sector-11, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam originally belongs to his grandfather Marada Venkataswamy and the same was registered in the settlement records in his name. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the grandfather of the petitioner had alienated some part of the land to third parties and an extent of 555 square yards was retained to the family. After demise of the grandfather, the property was devolved on his father Marada Apparao, who died on 02.05.2020, pursuant to which the petitioner succeeded to the property. 3. While so, in the year 2018, the father of the petitioner was informed that one Pulipati Venkateswar Reddy, who is having land adjacent to the property of the petitioner referred above had applied for Layout Legalization Scheme (LRS) and the same was approved by the Visakhapatnam Urban 3 Development Authority (VUDA) vide proceedings No.R.C.No.21599/08/L4, dated 30.09.2011. 4. On being informed of the regularisation, the father of the petitioner gave a complaint to Respondent No.2, pursuant to which a joint survey was conducted by the Estate Officer, GVMC along with Mandal Surveyor, Town Surveyor and the then Assistant City planner. As per the survey, the land in Sy.Nos.9/3 and 9/6 was wrongly shown as road even though the same belonging to the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, W.P.No.20403 of 2018 was filed by the father of the petitioner against Respondent No.2 questioning the attempts for formation of road. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the said Pulipati Venkateswar Reddy had sold the property to Potluri Constructions and the said purchaser entered into a compromise with the father of the petitioner. In view of the compromise, the Potluri builders purchased an extent of 104 Sq. Yds through registered sale deed No.4240/2020, dated 30.07.2020 for road purpose from the Co-Sharers in Sy.No.9/6. The W.P.No.20403 of 2018 was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.10.2020. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner and another filed a complaint on 06.07.2021 complaining dumping of waste over the property by the neighbours and again requested for survey of the property. The Town Surveyor again conducted a detailed survey and a report dated 19.07.2021 was submitted stating that the property of the petitioner cannot be considered 4 to be a road. Questioning the attempts for formation of road, the present writ petition is filed. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated that the grandfather and father of the petitioner had alienated an extent of 660 sq.yds to Jakkireddy Hanimi Reddy vide document No.149/2000 in which the schedule of the plot shown as 40 feet road on the west and 33 feet road on the south. It was also stated that the site of Potluri Constructions was also regularised under LRS Scheme duly showing 40 feet wide road on west side of the property vide LRS No.21599/L8/L4, dated 27.05.2021. 8. The private respondents i.e. respondent Nos.7 to 10 filed their counter affidavit stating that on 11.02.1999, Marada Apparao and others had executed an agreement of sale cum power of attorney bearing Doc.No.520/1999 in favour of Jakki Reddy Hanimi Reddy to an extent of 660 Sq.Yds showing the boundaries as under:- “East: Our own property West: 40 ft road North: our own property South: 33 ft road.” Pursuant to the same, a registered sale deed was executed vide Doc.No.149/2000. It was also stated that Jakkireddy Hanimireddy had in turn executed a gift deed in favour of Pulipati Venkateswar Reddy on 30.06.2005 on the basis of the title to the property. Sri Pulipati Venkateswar Reddy had applied for LRS which was approved as mentioned above, wherein the western side of the property was shown as 40 feet road. Sri Pulipati 5 Venkateswar Reddy had executed a possessory sale agreement coupled with general power of attorney vide Red. Doc.No.2475/2018, dated 18.04.2018 with the same boundaries. Subsequently, a registered rectification deed was executed in favour of Potluri Constructions vide Doc.No.4265/2020, dated 05.08.2020 showing the correct schedule as mentioned in Regd.Doc.No.520/1999, dated 11.02.1999 and had also got their lands regularized. 9. Later, the Potluri Constructions vide permit No.1086/1846/B/Z2/ CIR/2018, dated 13.08.2021 obtained permission for construction of residential apartment/building. The respondents had purchased the scheduled property from the GPA holder of the petitioner’s family members vide registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.1909/2001, 1910/2001, 1911/2001, 1912/2001, dated 12.04.2001. As the road was not being formed and the respondents had approached the 40 feet road under LRS, after series of representations, the formation of road was directed to be formed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the survey reports and contends that the survey conducted shows that the property in question is a private property and therefore the road could not be laid by the respondent- authorities. 11. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that father of the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.20403 of 2018 questioning the LRS proceedings vide permit No.1086/1846/B/Z2/CIR/2018, dated 13.08.2021 in favour of Pulipati 6 Venkateswar Reddy and as the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, the present writ petition cannot be maintained since no liberty was sought by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the proceedings under challenge in earlier writ petition is different from the proceedings challenged in this writ petition. Hence, there is no bar for maintaining the writ petition. 13. Having heard the respective counsels, the issue that the property in question is private property of the petitioner was urged in the previous W.P.No.20403 of 2018 filed by petitioner and the same was dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any liberty. Once the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, the petitioner estopped from reagitating the same issue in this writ petition. Apart from that, the petitioner is basically seeking for declaration of title over the property, which is not possible in a writ petition. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere to pass any order in favour of the petitioner. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 23.04.2025 SCS 7 261 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 3815/2024 DATE:- 23.04.2025 SCS