APHC010381492023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19643/2023 Between: Konisi Trinadha Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. T V SRI DEVI 4. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject land admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.112/6 chipurupally village and mandal, Vizianagaram district, which was acquired through succession. While so, the unofficial respondents herein have filed a suit vide O.S.No.99 of 2018 for permanent injunction on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chipurupally, which was pending consideration. 2. When the unofficial respondents have started construction of building by encroaching petitioner’s property without leaving any setbacks, the petitioner made an application dated 22.09.2022 under RTI act and the 5th respondent furnished the information that, upon the application made by the 6th respondent, building permission was granted to the 6th respondent vide proceedings dated 24.02.2022. 3. However, pending consideration of the suit vide O.S.No.99 of 2018, the 6th respondent had obtained permission for G+2 building and carrying out construction of G+4 building (contrary to the given permission) by encroaching the petitioner’s property as well as public property without leaving any setbacks. Despite making several representations in that regard, the respondent authorities have not taken action against the said illegal and unauthorized construction. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat. 5. A perusal of the material available on record would indicate that a suit vide O.S.No.99 of 2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chipurupally, is pending consideration between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. Law is well settled that Writ Court should not interfere in the matter where suit or any other proceeding is pending before the lower forum seeking self same relief as held in Jai singh Vs Union of India1. Moreover, the grievance is with regard to construction of a building without obtaining plan and it is statutory duty of the local authority to take steps in accordance with law. 6. However, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the consent of both the parties, with the following direction: “The authorities concerned are directed to take steps against construction, if any, made contrary to building permission or rules, in accordance with law. However, this order does not effect the rights of the parties”. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS 1 AIR 1977 SC 898