IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11677 OF 2025 Between: Tammana Ravi Kumar, S/o. Bullabbai, aged 49 years, R/o. Rajaji Nagar, Subramanya Nagar, No.3750, 4A Main Road, B-Block, Bengalure, State of Karnataka. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj Department), Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, D.No. 85- 7-20/1C, V.L.Puram, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Town and Country Planning Officer, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Collector, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Rajanagaram Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Represented by its Panchayat Secretary. f*. 8^ Dulam Ramachandrarao @ Chinna, S/o. Venkatarayudu, aged major, R/o. D.No.4-11, Sanavari Street, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. 9. Kolli Nageswararao, S/o. Butchayya, aged major, R/o. D.No.5-30, Gandhibomma Centre, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS 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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 in not taking action against the respondents 8 and 9 herein in deviating the approved layout in C.No.1381/2011/R1 confirmed in LP No. 112/2011/R dated 29.10.2011 by converting the space allotted for corhmunal purpose into plots by forming a bund.from East to West for their personal benefit by violating the conditions of the layout permission as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to all more cannons of justice consequentially direct the respondents 3,4,6 and 7 herein to take stringent action against the respondents 8 and 9 herein in deviating the approved layout in C.No.1381/2011/R1 confirmed in LP No. 112/2011/R dated 29.10.2011 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2025 forthwith. lA 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 to direct the respondents 3,4,6 and 7 herein to take stringent action against the respondents 8 and 9 herein in deviating the approved layout in C.NO.1381/2011/R1 confirmed in IP No. 112/2011/R dated 29.10.2011 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2025 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. / Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7: SRI V. SAI KIRAN FOR SRI Y. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: -- The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010233402025 r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11677/2025 Between: 1.TAMMANA RAVI KUMAR, S/0. BULLABBAI, AGED 49 YEARS, R/0. RAJAJI NAGAR, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, NO.3750, 4A MAIN ROAD, B-BLOCK, BENGALURE, STATE OF KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS (PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT), PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, D.NO.85-7-20/1C, V.L. PURAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE DISTRICT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING OFFICER, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5.THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, r—r* 2 »5f ANDHRA PRADESH. 6.THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE RAJANAGARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. 8.DULAM RAMACHANDRARAO CHINNA, S/0. VENKATARAYUDU, AGED MAJOR, R/0. D.NO.4-11, SANAVARI STREET, RAJANAGARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9.KOLLI NAGESWARARAO, S/0. BUTCHAYYA, AGED MAJOR, R/0. D.NO.5-30, GANDHIBOMMA CENTRE, RAJANAGARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Chethan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Sri Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 3. 3 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief; “...pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 in not taking action against the respondents 8 and 9 herein in deviating the approved layout in C.No.1381/2011/R1 confirmed in LP No.112/2011/R dated 29.10.2011 by converting the space allotted for communal purpose into plots by forming a bund from East to West for their personal benefit by violating the conditions of the layout permission as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to all cannons of justice consequentially direct the respondents 3,4,6 and 7 herein to take stringent action against the respondents 8 and 9 herein in deviating the approved layout in C.No.138172011/R1 confirmed in LP No.112/2011/R dated 29.10.2011 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2025 forthwith...” more \ Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel, has drawn the attention to para 11 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition indicating that the Suit filed by the Respondent No.9 bearing O.S.No.88 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry was decreed in favour of the Respondent No.9. 3. Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel would also submit that the Respondent No.9 has filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajamahendravaram and that the E.P. was also ordered. Although the Writ Petitioner has filed a copy of the legal Notice dated 24.03.2025, the averments with regard to the decreeing of O.S.No.88 of 2019 in favour of Respondent No.9 and disposal of the E.P.No.78 of 2024 in favour of Respondent No.9 are blissfully absent in the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition. 4. This is a typical case of Suppressio veri; suggestio falsi: Suppression of a material document or a material fact suggest^ falsehood. 5. 4 6. The Proceedings with regard to the Suit as well as the E.P. are material facts. The outcome in the said litigation is against the Writ Petitioner and therefore the material facts are deliberately suppressed by the Writ Petitioner. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. 7. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed not only for being devoid of merit but also on account of abuse of process. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. 9. 4/ Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGI^AR //TRUE COPY// SECT ON OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri V. Sai Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, SC for ZPP, MPP & Gram Panchayat[OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Papchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb «•»-«. r- HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11677 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS