APHC010246052021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 14043/2021 Between: Smt Vavilipallikhandava Jyothi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Pothubandi V.V.Satyaramaraju Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DODDALA YATHINDRA DEV 2. V VENKATA MAYUR 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: WP.No.14043 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.14043 of 2021 ORDER : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action on part of the 3rd respondent in according permission vide permit No. 1085/0047/B/SRI/BGA/2021, dated 18.03.2021. The petitioners filed written objections dated 13.11.2020 and 19.06.2021, which were not considered by the 3rd respondent. A consequential direction seeking withdrawal of the permission granted is sought in the writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner’s father acquired agricultural property in Sy.No.201/1 to an extent of Ac.1.86 cents and Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.201/4 and Ac.1.55 cents in Sy.No.201/1 situated at Balaga Village, Srikakulam Town by a registered document dated 09.03.1955. 3. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner’s father sold away some portion of the land to different individuals and executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 1st petitioner and her husband land to an extent of 382.22 square yards. It is submitted that ever since the 1st petitioner was put in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also submitted that on account of the escalation in prices the other purchasers of land in Sy.Nos.690/1 WP.No.14043 of 2021 and 690/2 were trying to encroach on the 1st petitioner property. The 1st petitioner filed LGOP.No.225 of 2021, which was dismissed on 07.08.2017. Thereafter the petitioners filed OS.No.324 of 2020 seeking declaration of title in respect of plot admeasuring 232.11 square yards in Town Sy.No.690/2/part. It is submitted that the trial Court had granted statusquo order which is being extended from time to time. 4. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent without obtaining any permission had started the construction in survey property and the unauthorized construction was demolished by the 3rd respondent. However, the 4th respondent continued to construct even prior to obtaining the building permission on 18.03.2021. 5. It is submitted that when the title to the property is the dispute, the 3rd respondent could not have considered the application of the petitioner for grant of permission and on the strength of the permission granted the 4th respondent has been hecticly continuing with the construction. This Court vide order dated 20.07.2021 directed the 3rd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders by giving notice to the 4th respondent. 6. The 3rd respondent in their counter submit that revised building permission permitting resumption of construction by the 4th WP.No.14043 of 2021 respondent was granted on 23.01.2025. It is submitted that work stop order dated 26.04.2021 was issued by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent calling upon the 4th respondent to comply with the shortfalls communicated. 7. It is submitted that the 4th respondent had complied with the shortfalls and as such the permission to resume construction was granted to the 4th respondent on 23.01.2025. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent would grant permission for construction of any building if the prima facie title and possession is submitted to the 3rd respondent along with the application form and payment of the applicable fee. 8. The 4th respondent has filed a counter duly intimating that there is absolutely no dispute on the title of the property purchased by the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner filed LGOP against the vendor of the 4th respondent which was dismissed, thereafter, the 1st petitioner filed a suit seeking declaratory relief and statusquo was granted till filing of the counters and the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit along with written statement on 28.06.2022 and that the statusquo was not extended thereafter. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition with a limited prayer of WP.No.14043 of 2021 challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in granting building permission to 4th respondent and seek for consideration of their written objections dated 13.11.2020 and 19.06.2021. A further consequential relief seeking withdrawal of the permission is also sought for. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also filed an additional documents bringing on record the order passed in LGOP.No.225 of 2001 to clarify that the remedy for determining the title and recovery of possession was before the civil Court and as such the LGOP was dismissed on 07.08.2017. It is submitted that thereafter the 1st petitioner approached the civil Court seeking the declaratory relief. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the Municipality and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Perused the material on record. 11. Admittedly, the title dispute is subsisting over the property which is claimed by the petitioners. The 4th respondent is the bonafide purchaser of the property from his vendor. The vendor of the 4th respondent was in continuous possession since the date of his purchase. The 4th respondent had also mutated his name in the municipal records within one month of registration of the WP.No.14043 of 2021 property. The Tahsildar issued endorsement duly informing that TS.No.690/2 correlates to old survey number 201/2. 12. The submissions of the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent has complied with the shortfalls in construction as notified by the 3rd respondent are duly supported by the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. Resumption of construction was duly issued on 20.01.2025. The dispute with regard to either identification of the property or the difference in survey numbers pointed out by the petitioner, the town survey numbers are different from the original survey numbers etc., and the dispute with regard to location of the plot as in Sy.Nos.690/1 or 690/2 as claimed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent would require a detailed trial. 13. The petitioners and the 4th respondent are contesting OS.No.324 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The 4th respondent has initiated the construction while contesting the suit. In other words the 4th respondent is aware of the implication of the outcome of the suit. Considering the final building approval dated 20.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, the prayer for the petitioner for revocation cannot be considered. The disputed questions of fact would require a detailed trial before the competent civil Court. This Court cannot conduct a WP.No.14043 of 2021 roving enquiry on the issue of title nor can determine the title in a writ jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the impugned proceedings and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 14.10.2025 KGM WP.No.14043 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.14043 of 2021 Date: 14.10.2025 KGM