Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48232 (AP)

S. Narasimha Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

WP/621/2015 · 2025-09-22

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010629142015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 621/2015 Between: 1. S. NARASIMHA REDDY,, SON OF BALAKONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 24-11/274, NIRMALA SOWDHA, SANTHINAGAR, NELLORE - 524 001. 2. S. NIRMALA,, WIFE OF S.NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 24-11/274, NIRMALA SOWDHA, SANTHINAGAR, NELLORE - 524 001. 3. S.BABITHA,, WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.6, ANNAPOORNA APARTMENTS, BALAJINAGAR, NELLORE - 524 002. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MA & UD (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD - 500 022. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN COUNTRY PLANNING, FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD. 3. THE NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS, COMMISSIONER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. DR M TIRUPATHI REDDY, SON OF KONDA REDDY, NO.6, PORUR SOMASUNDARAM STREET, T-NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. A PANDURANGA RAO The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- No representation for the petitioner. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has sought implementation of the Master Plan in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 07.01.2011. 3. It is submitted that the respondents have subsequently revised the Master Plan and G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 26.03.2025 are issued. As such, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. 4. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 23.09.2025 SR