APHC010073702014 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: 24121/2014 Between: Sri Tummala Tulasi Das, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Government Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M S R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 226 of India declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd respondent in R.C. No. 11693/2007/1-1/Ann. II/2 Dt. 3.7.2014 as violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, illegal and void” 2. On 22.08.2014, when the matter came up for admission, this Court, after hearing the submissions, passed the following interim order. “…There shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, but however, it shall not preclude the 2nd respondent from initiating civil proceedings for cancellation of registration of the subject plots before the jurisdictional civil court.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned standing Counsel on oral instructions has submitted that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit vide O.S.No.450 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners herein for the plot No.52 in Sy.No.34 part of Rushikonda Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District only. 5. On perusal of the said instructions submitted by the learned standing Counsel, it is clear that even without cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners, the respondents have cancelled the allotment which in fact should have been done after cancellation of the sale deed. However, in view of the fact that the respondents have already filed Civil Suit vide O.S.No.450 of 2016 seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 cancelling the allotment is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.11693/2007/I-1/Ann-II/21, dated 03.07.2014. However, 3 cancellation of allotment shall be subject to the result of the O.S.No.450 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The concerned Civil Court is directed to decide the civil suit pending before it on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed by this Court in the present writ petition. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.02.2025 Gss