APHC010085042019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 3704 OF 2019 Between: 1. Avula Radha, W/o. Venkata Kotaiah Aged about 36 Years, Occ. House Wife. R/o. 14-29-31, Ravi Vari Street, Tenali, Guntur District. 2. Kanneboina Venkata Ratnam, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 55 Years, R/o.4-164, Ramnagar, Chimkakurthy, Prakasam District 3. Kanneboina Suresh, , S/o. Venkata Ratnam, Aged about 28 Years, R/o. 4-164, Ramnagar, Chimkakurthy, Prakasam District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its.. Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development Authority Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravthi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector and Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. Chirala Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Chirala, Prakasam District. 4. Polisetti Venugopal Rao, S/o. Ramachandra Murthy, R/o. 18-2-12, Utukurivari Street, Chirala, Prakasam District. 5. Polisetti Radharani, W/o. Venugopal Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. 18-2-12, Utukurivari Street, Chirala, Prakasam District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in restraining the illegal construction undertaken by the 4th and 5th respondents in the 2nd floor of VS Towers in 13th ward, 3rd Block, Block No.4 TS.No.115 Chirala, Prakasam District which was pledged to Municipality and that of failure of the official respondents to initiate action against the 4th and 5th respondents on the representation made by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the BRS Scheme and the same is amounts to dereliction of duties, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to stop the illegal construction undertaken by the 4th and 5th respondents. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to stop the illegal construction undertaken by the 4th and 5th respondents in the 2nd floor of VS Towers in 13th ward, TS Ward No.3, Block No.4 TS.No.151 of Chirala, Prakasam District forthwith. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 s Between: 1. Polisetti Venugopal Rao, S/o. Ramachandra Murthy, R/o. 18-2-12, Utukurivari Street, Chirala, Prakasam District. Polisetti Radharani, W/o. Venugopal Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. 18-2-12, Utukurivari Street, Chirala, Prakasam District. 2. ...Petitioners/Respondents No.4 & 5 AND Smt. Avula Radha, W/o. Venkata Kotaiah Aged about 36 Years, Occ. House Wife. R/o. 14-29-31, Ravi Vari Street, Tenali, Guntur District. Kanneboina Venkata Ratnam, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 55 Years, R/o.4-164, Ramnagar, Chimkakurthy, Prakasam District Kanneboina Suresh, , S/o. Venkata Ratnam, Aged about 28 Years, R/o. 4-164, Ramnagar, Chimkakurthy, Prakasam District. 1. 2. 3. ...Respondents/Petitioners 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its., Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development Authority Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravthi, Guntur District. 5. The District Collector and Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 6. Chirala Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Chirala, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 19-03-2019 in I.A.No. 1/2019 in W.P.No. 3704/2019 and dismiss the miscellaneous petition as well as dismiss the main writ petition as devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petitioners: SR! Y NAG! REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.4 & 5: SRI MD SALEEM The Court made the following Order: APHC010085042019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY.THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 3704/2019 Between: 1.A RADHA, W/0. VENKATA KOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE. R/0. 14-29-31, RAVI VARI STREET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.KANNEBOINA VENKATA RATNAM,, S/0. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0.4-164, RAMNAGAR, CHIMKAKURTHY PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3.KANNEBOINA SURESH, , S/0. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YhAKS, R/U. 4-164, R.AMNAGAR, CHIMKA.kURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN AUTHORITY VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVTHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, , PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. REP BY ITS., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, 3.CHIRALA MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS., COMMISSIONER, CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.POLISETTI VENUGOPAL RAO, S/O. RAMACHANDRA R/0. 18-2-12, UTUKURIVARI STREET DISTRICT. 5.POLISETTI RADHARANI, W/0. VENUGOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0. 18-2-12, UTUKURIVARI STREET, CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT MURTHY, CHIRALA, PRAKASAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 n Counsel for the Petitioner(S); 1.YNAGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.MD SALEEM 2.GP FORMUNCIPALADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following; 3 ORDER:- The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the 3^^ respondent in restraining the illegal construction undertaken by respondent Nos.4 and 5 the 2"^^ floor of VS Towers in 13*^ ward of Chirala Municipality. on 2. This Court on 19.03.2019 directed the 3'^'^ respondent to appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners and communicate the same to the petitioners. This Court further directed the 3'"^ respondent not to allow respondent Nos.4 and 5 to continue the alleged illegal constructions on the 2"^ floor. pass \ 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that till date no orders are passed by the 2'"^ r-' > u! * ti i0 rtfprs^ Micstiu!! uT tii0 pwtitiOfi^rs The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3'"'^ respondent submits that the 3'^'^ respondent had issued notices to respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have applied for regularization of the alleged deviated portion on the 2^^ floor and paid the initial amount. It is also submitted that the BPS application was not processed further, as the writ petition is pending before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that even if the writ petition is allowed, it would not impact respondents Nos. 4 and 5, as the respondents Nos.4 and 5 are not undertake any further construction 5. 4 and that any further construction would be subject to approval from the competent authority. » \ 6. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. Sd/-NNAGAMMA ; ASSISTANT REGrSTRAR > SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to SRI. Y NAGI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. MD SALEEM, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. URBAN DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. vna s HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 WPNO. 3704 OF 2019 I ) .5 SEP 2025 ^ . Current Section % m CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS