IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No’s: 28362 & 29930 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION No’s: 28362 of 2024 Between: Dr.V.Janaki, D/o.V.Madan Mohan Rao Aged about- 58 years Occ - Doctor Flat No.101, Ananthapadma Residency OU Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam, Municipal Corporation(GVMC), Rep. by Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by. its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Station House Officer, PM Palem PS, Visakhapatnam City The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pothala Appala Naidu, S/o.Rammurthy Aged about- 44 years Occ -Business H.No.45-2-30/39/1, Abid Nagar, Akkayyapalem, ' Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. f ...Respondents X.. ■ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the 1st and 3rd respondent herein, calling the petitioner orally and without any manner of right interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property and orally threatening to demolish the constructions over the petitioners property bearing Door No.6-69 on land admeasuring 626.46 Sq.Yds at Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) even though the constructions are strictly in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the 1st respondent vide permit No.1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022 dated.22.12.2022 without any notice or following due process of Law as illegal, unwarranted, unsustainable, arbitrary, unconstitutional, motivated, against Article 300 of Indian Constitution, Law as well as principles of natural justice and direct the Respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property bearing Door No.6-69 on land admeasuring 626.46 Sq.Yds at Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) without following due process of Law. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere peaceful possession and enjoyment and constructions on the petitioner’s property bearing Door No.6-69 on land admeasuring 626.46 Sq.Yds at Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) without following due process of law. Petition under Section 151 lA NO; 1 OF 2025 Between; Pothala Appala Naidu, S/o.Rammurthy Aged about- 44 years Occ - H.No.45-2-30/39/1, Abid Nagar. Akkayyapalem, Business Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District ...Petitioner/Respondent No.5 AND 1. Dr.V.Janaki, D/o.V.Madan Mohan Rao Aged about- 58 years Occ - Doctor Flat No. 101, Ananthapadma Residency OU Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. ... Respondent/Petitioner 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam, Municipal Corporation(GVMC), Rep. by Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by. its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 4. The Station House Officer, PM Palem PS, Visakhapatnam City 5. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District. .. .Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the interim order dated: 04.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in WP No.28362 of 2024 and direct the petitioner to restrain from making any further construction in subject property and dismiss the said Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) Counsel for the Respondent N<).2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: None appeared WRIT PETITION No’s: 29930 of 2024 Between: Pothala Appala Naidu, S/o 'Rammurthy, Aged about 44 years, R/o H.No.45-2-30/39/1, Abid Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam District - 530016,A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, AP Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), Rep. by Commissioner, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District, A.P. 4. Dr.V.Janaki, D/o V.Madan Mohan Rao, Aged about 58 years. Doctor, R/o Flat No. 101 Anantha padma Residency, OU Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, Telangana. 5. Gogineni Naga Pranav, GF-1, Baba Nivas, Pappalaguda, Near Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Telangana 6. Gogineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Business, R/o D.No.6-69, Opposite Gitam College, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any High Court may be pleased to issue a other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the i)Action of the Respondent No.2 herein in erroneously granting Permission vide Permit No. 1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022 herein the Building dated 22.12.2022 to No.5 on the Respondent • ‘"-N misrepresentation of material facts regarding title, in respect of the petitioner's land in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents (726 Sq. Yards) in Sy. Yards) in Sy. No.52/20 and D.No.7-59/1, situate in Ommivanipalem of Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without prima facie verifying the title of the Respondent No.4 herein and ii)inaction of the Respondent No.2 herein in revoking the erroneously granted and fraudulently obtained building permit order - ■ Building No. 1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022dated22.12.2022 on misrepresentation of material facts regarding title, by the Respondent No.5 herein acting for respondent no.4 herein, despite written requests or applications being made by the petitioner herein to the effect showing valid ownership / title documents in respect of the land to which the building permit order has been granted to the Respondent No.5 herein and Permission vide Permit iii) Inaction of the Respondents herein in taking statutory preventive steps against the respondentsno.4to6 here in for making illegal or un authorized construction on the strength of the erroneously granted or fraudulently obtained building permit order - Building Permission vide Permit No. 1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022 dated 22.12.2022 on misrepresentation of material facts regarding ownership or title as arbitrary,., illegal, contrary to the mandate of the law, contrary to the Provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, A.P Building Rules, 2017, allied laws iri force and violative of the constitutional mandate i.e.. Articles 14, 19, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and iv)Consequently directing the respondents herein to take appropriate, stringent and useful action against the unauthorized construction being made by the respondents no.4 to 6 herein in the petitioner's land in an extent ofAc.0.15 cents (726 Sq. Yards) in Sy. No.52/20 and D.No.7-59/1, situate in Ommivanipalem of Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on the strength of the fraudulently obtained building permit order - Building Permission vide Permit No. 1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022 dated 22.12.2022 on misrepresentation of material facts regarding ownership or title and and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 & 3 herein to take appropriate, stringent and useful action restraining the respondents no.4 to6 herein from making unauthorized construction in the petitioner’s land in an extent ofAc. 0.15 cents (726 Sq. Yards) in Sy. No.52/20 & D.No.7-59/1, situate in Ommivanipalem of Rushikonda Village Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on the strength of the fraudulently obtained building permit order - Building Permission vide Permit No. 1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022 dated 22.12.2022 on misrepresentation of material facts regarding ownership or title and pass such other order or orders as the Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case or in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PARAVADA MANOJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nb.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS , Counsel for the Respondent No.3:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.4, 5 & 6: SRI K RAMANNA DORA The Court made the following Common Order: APHC010547142024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28362/2024 Between: D/O.V.MADAN MOHAN RAO AGED ABOUT- 58 YEARS FLAT NO.101, ANANTHAPADMA RESIDENCY OU 1.DR.V.JANAK1 OCC - DOCTOR COLONY, SHAIKPET, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY GREATER 1.THE CORPOIRATION(GVMC) VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHFIA PRADESH. BY. ITS PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN REP. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT VEU\GAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PM PALEM PS, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY MANUAL RURAL VISAKHAPATNAM 4.THETAHSILDAR VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5 POTHALA APPALA NAIDU, S/O.RAMMURTHY AGED ABOUT- 44 H.NO.45-2-30/39/1, ABID NAGAR , YEARS OCC -BUSINESS AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 29930/2024 Between: 1.POTHALA APPAU\ NAIDU,, S/0 RAMMURTHY, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/0 H.NO.45-2-30/39/1, ABID NAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530016,A.P 44 AKKAYYAPALEM, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM GVMC, REP. BY COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THETAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. 4. DR V JANAKI, D/0 V.MADAN MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DOCTOR, R/0 FLAT NO. 101 ANANTHA PADMA RESIDENCY OU • COLONY, SHAIKPET, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. 5.GOGINENI NAGA PRANAV, GF-1, BABA NIVAS, PAPPALAGUDA HYDERABAD, RANGA KEUDY, TELANGANA 6.GOGINENI SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 VENKATESWARLU R/0 D.NO.6-69, OPPOSITE GITAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY. URBAN DEVELOPMENT . AMARAVATHI, AND AP SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL MANDAL BUSINESS, RUSHIKONDA, COLLEGE ...RESPONDENT(S): 3 Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PARAVADA MANOJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3.K B RAMANNA DORA 4.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.28362 and 29930 of 2024 COMMON ORDER- 1. W.P.No.28362 of 2024 is filed questioning the action of the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner’s property and threatening to demolish the being made by the Petitioner in Door No.6-69 on land admeasuring 626.46 Sq. Yards at Rishikonda, Visakhapatnam constructions are in accordance with the building plan sanctioned vide Permit No.1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022, dated 22.12.2022, arbitrary and for consequential reliefs. constructions even though the as illegal, 2. W.P.No.29930 of 2024 is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in granting building permission vide Permit No. 1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022, dated 22.12.2022 on misrepresentation regarding title in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents (726 Sq. Yards) in Sy.No.52/20 & Door No.7-59/1 situated in Ommivanipalem of Rishikonda Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District arbitrary and for consequential reliefs. as illegal 3. As both the cases are with reference to the building plan sanctioned in favour of Dr. V. Janaki i.e. the Petitioner in W.P.No.28362 of 2024, a Common Order is being passed. 2 4. W.P.No.28362 of 2024 is taken as a lead case and the parties are described as mentioned therein. 5. In W.P.No.28362 of 2024, the Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing Door No.6-69 on land admeasuring 626.46 Sq. Yards at Rishikonda, Visakhapatnam. The land extends to an extent of Ac. 166.66 Sq. Yards was acquired by the Petitioner pursuant to a registered Sale Deed dated 30.12.2003 bearing document No.4435 of 2003 from Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) pursuant to the public auction. The balance extent of Ac.459.8 Sq. Yards was purchased by the Petitioner vide registered Sale Deed bearing document No.3774 of 2003, dated 12.10.2003 from one Smt. Dunna Lima. The Petitioner claims to be in possession of the said property. 6. On 22.09.2021, the Petitioner entered into a Development Agreement with one Gogineni Naga Pranav vide document bearing No.6219 of 2021, dated 22.09.2021. Pursuant thereto, a building permission was applied and the same was sanctioned vide Permit NO.1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022, dated 22.12.2022. As per the building permission, the survey numbers were mentioned as Sy.No.52/16 P & Sy.No.52/20 P and the approved plan was for residential buildings with Ground + 4 Upper Floors. 3 7. In the Writ Affidavit, the Petitioner pleaded that the property was of an extent of 166.66 Sq. Yards purchased from A.P.S.F.C was assessed to the property tax vide Assessment No.729 and was having Door No.6- 69. The Petitioner further stated that on survey vide Endorsement dated 26.05.2020, the property purchased by the Petitioner from A.P.S.F.C is in Sy.No.52/20 but not in Sy.No.52/21 C. As there was disturbance from the Respondent No.5, the Petitioner had filed a suit O.S.No.452 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Bheemunipatnam and an interim injunction order was passed against the Respondent No.5 in I.A.No.142 of 2024 on 26.09.2024 and the same is in vogue. The Petitioner further pleaded that suppressing the pendency of suit, the Respondent No.5 had filed W.P.No.24260 of 2024 before this Court against a third party and this Court vide Order dated 28.10.2024 had disposed of the Writ Petition at admission stage with a direction to the Respondents therein to consider the representation of the Respondent No.5 dated 15.07.2024. 8. It is further pleaded that pursuant to the orders dated 28.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.24260 of 2024, the Respondent No.1 sought to demolish the constructions of the Petitioner and hence the writ petition was filed. 9. 4 The Respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.29930 of 2024 contending that 10. the building permission in favour of the Petitioner was issued without verifying the title. It is further pleaded that the Respondent No.5 had purchased the property of an extent of Ac.0.15 cents in Sy.No.52/20 bearing Door No.7-59/1 under a registered Sale Deed vide document No.3504 of 2003, dated 10.11.2006. The Petitioner also refers to the source of title of his vendors and vendors’ vendors in the Writ Affidavit. 11. The Respondent No.5 also pleaded that a Rectification Deed was executed on 15.11.2006 vide document bearing No.3555 of 2006 dated 15.11.2006 as the survey number was wrongly mentioned as ‘52/2’ instead of ‘52/20’ and necessary changes were said to have been made by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural in Village No.3 Adangal. The case of the Respondent No.5 is that the Petitioner is encroaching into the property of the Respondent No.5 under the guise of building permission. Criminal cases were also registered against each other. Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the Petitioner 12. and Sri Paravada Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. 13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Commissioner, GVMC had passed a speaking order on 02.01.2025 \ \ taking note of the objections raised by the Respondent No.5 regarding f 5 encroachment of his land and for cancellation of the building plan and had directed the parties to seek for adjudication of title before the competent Civil Court. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in view of the detailed speaking order, it would be appropriate for the Respondent No.5 to seek for adjudication of his rights before the concerned Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration of title and for consequential reliefs. 14. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner had filed suit O.S.No.452 of 2024 against the Respondent No.5 is an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.142 of 2024 by the Civil Court granting interim injunction against the Respondent No.5 and contends that in the face of interim injunction in favour of the Petitioner, the claim of the Respondent No.5 should be examined only by the Civil Court concerned and filing of the Writ Petition after having noticed interim injunction in the civil suit is clearly an afterthought and an attempt to overreach the orders of the Civil Court. and that there 15. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in the Sale Deed executed by the A.P.S.F.C, there was an existing building of plinth area of 298 Sq. feet and pursuant to the sale deed the Petitioner has been in possession of the property all-through. \ \ / 6 16. In response, the counsel for the Respondent No.5 explained the flow of title from 1992 onwards and substantially relied on the Report of Joint Inspection conducted by the Mandal Surveyor and the Mandal Revenue Inspector pursuant to the letter forwarded by the Station House Officer, P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The counsel for the Respondent No.5 submits that as per the Joint 17. Inspection Report, the Sale Deeds of the Petitioner with reference to the document bearing No.4435 of 2003 are not tallied and that the documents of the Respondent No.5 i.e. from the vendor, vendor’s vendor and that of Respondent No.5 dated 06.06.1972, 10.11.2006 and 15.11.2006 respectively were tallying. In reply arguments, the counsel for the Petitioner submits that no 18. notice was issued to the Petitioner before conducting the survey and the Joint Inspection Report is of no consequence and cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Joint Inspection appears to be conducted at the instance of the Station House Officer, P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam i.e. same Police Station, is clearly an attempt to overcome the orders of injunction passed by the Civil Court, as noticed in the Joint Inspection Report. 19. Having hoard tho rospoctivo counsol, this Court is of tho opinion that tho core issue in dispute is the identity of the property of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 and the overlap is said to be an extent of Ac.0.03 cents i.e. about 150 square yards. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 are tracing their title to their property through independent source of title, as mentioned above. The scope for the Respondent authorities to go into issues of title and identity is only limited to prima facie examination of title and identity. This is all the more in case of this nature as the petitioner had already approached Civil Court i.e. Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Bheemunipatnam, wherein interim injunction against the Respondent No.5 in I.A.No. 142 of 2024 in O.S.No.452 of 2024 was passed. X an / 20. Any deviation of this principle would virtually amount to converting the office of Municipal Commissioner to that of civil court leading perennial litigation. In the light of the above, it would be appropriate to approach Civil Court for relief as advised with regard to the extent of property claimed. to 21. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent No.5/ writ petitioner in W.P.No.29930 of 2024 to work out his remedies before the Civil Court regarding his claim encroachment by the Petitioner; of 8 (ii) The Respondents shall not interfere with the construction activity of sanctioned NO.1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022, dated 22.12.2022; the Petitioner vide building Permit (iii) The Petitioner shall not deviate construction from the sanctioned building Permit No.1086/5729/B/Z2/RDA/2022, dated 22.12.2022 and any deviation shall be construed as contempt of the order of this court. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam, Municipal Corporation(GVMC), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Station House Officer, PM Palem PS, Visakhapatnam City 4. TheTahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 5. One CC to Sri. K B Ramanna Dora, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Paravada Manoj Kumar, Advocate.[OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 10. One CC to Sri. A S C Bose (SC for MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) [OPUC] 11.Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.28362 & 29930 of 2024 S' § 17 JUN 2025 m .69, ^SPATCV\€^^ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS