Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47714 (AP)

C V RAMANA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/21236/2025 · 2025-09-07

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010411892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21236/2025 Between: 1. C V RAMANA, S/O LATE VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC PRINCIPAL (RETD.) R/O. FI.NO.24/21, PLOT.NO.165, SARADA NILAYAM, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GORANTIA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a Wirt, Direction or Order more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1ST respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking regularization of the vacant site to an extent of 24 Ankanams (192 Sq. Yards) in favour of the petitioner which 2 is adjacent to the petitioner's site in Magunta Layout in NMC in LP.No.101/95 on payment of Market Value vide a Memo.No.383619/MA AND UD/12/2022 dated 11.11.2022 without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1ST respondent to reconsider the request of the petitioner and regularise the vacant site to an extent of 24 Ankanams (192 Sq. Yards) adjacent to the petitioner's site in Magunta Layout in NMC in LP.No.101/95 on payment of Market Value duly considering the report of the 3RD respondent dated 20.12.2019 in favour of the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to direct the respondent to reconsider the request of the petitioner seeking regularization of the vacant site to an extent of 24 Ankanams (192 Sq. Yards) adjacent to the petitioner’s site in Magunta Layout in NMC in LP.No.101/95 on payment of Market Value duly considering the report of the 3RD respondent dated 20.12.2019, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21236 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Municipality in taking forward the recommendation of the 3rd respondent dated 20.12.2019. The petitioner is the owner of Plot No.165, in Magunta Layout, under L.P.No.101/95. 2. It is submitted that an extent of 192 square yards of open land belonging to the 3rd respondent is adjoining the petitioner’s plot. The petitioner’s plot is of an odd shape, with the northern side measuring 54 feet, the eastern side measuring 38.6 feet, the southern side measuring 60.5 feet, and the western side measuring 10 feet. If the adjoining land measuring 192 square yards is sold to the petitioner, he would be able to construct a better house on the plot bearing No.165. 3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.29816 of 2018, and this Court directed the respondent authorities to respond to the memo dated 26.02.2018 issued by the Government and submit a report to the Government as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that said order, so as to enable the Government to take further action in the matter strictly in accordance with law. 4. It was also categorically stated by the 3rd respondent that no one may come forward to purchase the said land in a public auction except the 4 applicant, as the respective portion of his site in Plot No.165 is also a trapezium-shaped bit, which can be regularized into a rectangular form if merged with the adjoining site. In this connection, the 3rd respondent sought permission of the State Government for disposing of the said plot in favor of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent, through proceedings dated 11.11.2022, rejected the request of the petitioner, stating that the same is not feasible for consideration as per the existing rules. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent did not duly consider the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.12.2019 in letter and spirit, nor did the 1st respondent provide proper justification or reasoning and rational basis for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner’s request is not feasible for consideration. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the odd-shaped plot adjoining the petitioner’s land has become a dumping ground for the residents of the area and has also turned into a breeding ground for mosquitoes and insects due to unhygienic dumping, which is posing a threat to the health of the local residents residing near the said plot. 6. In view of the above considerations, this Court is inclined to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the proceedings dated 20.12.2019 and pass fresh orders, duly taking into account the reasoning given by the 3rd 5 respondent for nor proceeding with a public auction and instead considering disposal of the plot of the petitioner. 7. The impugned proceedings dated 11.11.2022 are hereby set aside for being devoid of any proper reasoning assigned by the 1st respondent. in light of the above, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:08.09.2025 NKA 6 221 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21236 of 2025 Date: 08.09.2025 NKA