APHC010694592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1349 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-3 [3552] AP State Waqf Board ...Appellant Vs. Korivi Sri Krishna and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. P. Veera Reddy, Ld. Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shaik Khaja Basha Advocates for Respondents: Mr. A. Chandraih Naidu, Mr. Gudapati Lakshminarayana (SC for Municipalities) – R4 and R5, CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 20th December, 2025. P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated 01.12.2025, passed in W.P.No.33324 of 2025, which has the effect of granting the entire relief that was sought in the Writ Petition by the petitioner. 2. On a reading of the judgment and order impugned, it appears that the learned Single Judge issued directions to the concerned respondents not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner, so long as the petitioner was constructing strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/A.P. State Waqf Board however states that the building plan earlier approved in favour of the petitioner on 2 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1349_2025 08.09.2025, was subsequently suspended by issuance of a stop-work order, dated 09.09.2025. It is also stated that the only relief that had been claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition was in the nature of seeking a writ of Mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 and 4, i.e. Naidupet Municipality and the Town Planning Officer, to grant permission for construction. As against this, it is stated that the learned Single Judge proceeded to permit the petitioner to raise construction without referring at all to the stop- work order that had been issued by the concerned authority. It is also stated that, as of now, the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein is raising construction by deploying heavy machinery and that the proceedings before the learned Single Judge have thereby been rendered academic. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein contends that the vendors of the petitioner had been granted settlement pattas in the year 1964 and that the petitioner was bona fide purchaser of the land in question from their vendors and had every right to raise construction on the said parcel of land. It is also stated that although a stop-work order was issued, the same would not affect the petitioner’s right to raise construction on the said plot of land. 3 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1349_2025 It is however not denied that the stop-work order was still in force and had not been quashed or set aside by the learned Single Judge, though construction is being raised based upon the directions of the learned Single Judge. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Apparently, there is a dispute raised by the appellant with regard to the property in question, as suggested by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Veera Reddy, who states that the property in question has been notified as Waqf Property. 6. Apart from the above, it appears that a stop-work order issued by the municipal authorities, who are competent to issue such an order, which is still in force and until and unless the said order is either stayed or set aside for reasons, which should have found a mention in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and unless such order is passed after hearing the Waqf Board (which is also arrayed as a party respondent in the writ petition), the interest of the appellant would, in our opinion, be severely prejudiced. 7. Although the learned Single Judge recorded the presence of one Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, as Standing Counsel for respondent No.7 (Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board), yet Mr. Lakshminarayana, who is present in the Court today states that he is in fact counsel for respondent No.3 i.e. Naidupet Municipality and not for the Waqf Board. 4 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1349_2025 8. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the appellant needs to be heard by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we remand the matter for fresh consideration on Monday i.e., 22.12.2025. The appellant would be at liberty to file a short affidavit in the meantime. 9. The operation of the judgment and order impugned shall remain stayed till the matter is considered afresh by the learned Single Judge and appropriate orders are passed. We further direct the municipal authorities and the Police of the concerned area to ensure that no construction is raised till further orders are passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Registry is directed to list W.P.No.33324 of 2024, before the learned Single Judge having Roster on 22.12.2025. This Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN