1 APHC010056692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2959/2025 Between: Seela Janardhan, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents and their personnel without following due process of law interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property, attempting to dispossess and demolish the petitioner’s ongoing construction of Residential Building under Building Permit No.1002/0003/B/DMM/Mad/2024 dated 13.01.2024 for Plot No.28 and 29 situated in Sy.No.414/8, 414/9 and 414/10 to an extent of 128 Sq.Yards bounded East: Land of M.Syamala Devi and other, West: 18 feet Road, North: Seela Srinivasulu in Plot No 26, 27 and 28 and South: Land of K.Chalapati at Gandhi Nagar, Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District without issuing any notice(s), under any of the Acts in vogue as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India …...” 2. The petitioner has purchased Plot Nos.28 and 29 to an extent of 128 Sq.yards situated in Sy.No.414/8, 414/9 and 414/10 through registered sale deeds. After purchasing the said property, the petitioner has submitted an application for building permission. The respondent No.2 after duly conducting an enquiry, has granted the building permission on 13.01.2024 for construction of Ground + one residential house. Accordingly, when the petitioner commenced the said construction, respondent Nos.2 and 3 tried to interfere into the said construction without any notice. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that some third parties have filed a suit in the year 2023 with regard to the scheduled property for partition of their shares and thereafter a complaint was raised by the third parties who have filed a suit. Basing on the same, one Mamilla Ravindranath filed W.P.No.3473 3 of 2024, challenging the inaction of the respondents in considering the representations made by them, which infact are the complaint made against the petitioner. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court closed the writ petition duly considering the fact the building permission was granted in favour of the petitioner herein, who was respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. But, however, left it open to said Ravindranath to challenge the said building permission if at all he is aggrieved. 4. The grievance of the petitioner as of now is that in spite of there being an order in his favour, respondent Nos.2 and 3 visited the petitioner’s scheduled property on 30.01.2025 and tried to interfere with the ongoing construction works. The same is challenged before this Court on the ground that without issuing any notice and without following due process of law the respondents are interfering with the said constructions. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. During hearing, Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3, informed this Court that they will not interfere with the petitioner’s scheduled property without following due process of law. 7. Duly taking into consideration already the building permission was granted to the petitioner on 13.01.2024 and the petitioner is also making constructions in accordance with the said building permission; the 4 respondents are directed not to interfere with the ongoing construction without following due process of law, until and unless they find any deviations from the approved building permission. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.02.2025 KGR