APHC010089202014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 40559/2014 Between: Naval, Civil, Tech.&non-tech.emp.coop.housing Bldg.,vskptm. ...PETITIONER AND Gvmc Visakhapatnam 2 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. G L NAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following: 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in not considering the representation dated 12.12.2014 and to conduct arid enquiry for cancellation of building permission granted in favour of the 3rd Respondent with respect to Plot No. 105 in Sy. No. 6 & 7 of R.R. Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District...” 2. The petitioner herein is a co-operative house building society, registered under the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The main object of the society is to acquire lands within the vicinity of Visakhapatnam and to develop the land as lay out and further to allot house plots to its members for construction of houses. Similarly, the society has acquired a total extent of Acs.8.15 cents in Sy.No.6 and 7 of R.R. Venkatapuram Village, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam and, upon clearance from Sri Varaha lakshmi Devasthanam, SImhachalam and after approval from the Government, house plots were allotted to the members of the society. While so, plot No.105 which is to an extent of Acs.200 square yards was allotted to one Mr. V. Tata Rao, who is a member of the petitioner society vide sale deed dated 28.05.1983. However, the said plot was alienated by the said Mr. V. Tata Rao to the 3rd respondent herein vide sale deed dated 17.03.2006. Having identified the same, notices were issued to the petitioner society, challenging which the petitioner society has filed A.R.C. 5/2010-11 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.03.2006 wherein, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Arbitrator, Visakhapatnam vide award dated 22.07.2011 held that the sale deed dated 17.03.2006 was executed illegally and contrary to the bye-laws of the Society and further directed the petitioner society to take steps for cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.03.2006. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner society has filed O.S.No.1646 of 2014 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking cancellation of the said sale deed dated 17.03.2006. Thereafter, the 1st and 2nd respondents, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has issued building permission to the 3rd respondent pursuant to which construction was already started in plot No.105. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner society has submitted a detailed representation to the 1st and 2nd respondents on 12.12.2014 requesting to conduct enquiry and to cancel the building permission granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. As no action was initiated in pursuance of the said representation, the present petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 30.12.2014, this Court has passed an interim direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 12.12.2014 submitted by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Administration and Sri. G. L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.1646 of 2014 seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent and the said suit was dismissed on 03.07.2019 for non-prosecution and has attained finality. Learned counsel has further contended that when the suit which was filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed itself was dismissed, the question of conducting enquiry on the grant of building permission to the 3rd respondent by the respondents authorities does not arise. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. It is an admitted fact that the suit which was filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 03.07.2019 for non-prosecution. However, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 12.12.2014 submitted to the 1st and 2nd respondents. In view of the same, instead of going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 12.12.2014, if not yet passed, by duly taking into consideration that the suit filed by the petitioner vide O.S.No.1646 of 2014 was already dismissed on 03.07.2019. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 03.01.2025 GSS