Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8863 (AP)

Mopidevi Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/5129/2024 · 2025-05-08

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

4k. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5129 OF 2024 Between: 1. Mopidevi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, aged 75 , R/o. 3-259, Near VM Ranga Statue Kapula Bazar, Poranki - 521 137, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality Krishna District. 2. Dasari Suresh, S/o. Madhava Rao R/o. 3-250, Near VM Ranga Statue Kapula Bazar, Poranki - 521 137, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality Krishna District years. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Poranki, Krishna District Commissioner. Rep. by its 3. Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA), Rep. by its Vice chairman, Vijayawada. 4. M/s. Sri Rama Associates, Rep. by Managing Partners Chalamalasetty Rama Devi w/o. Veeraiah 2. Mothe Durga Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao R/o New Postal Colony Vijayawada, NTR District. 1. . M: Road, Patamata, ...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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not stopping the illegal construction in Survey No. 427/1 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District being made by the un-official respondent contrary to the sanctioned plan and not considering and disposing of the Legal Notice of the petitioners dated 05-12-2023, as being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the Legal Notice sent by the petitioners and also to demolish the illegal construction made by the un-official respondent in the above said land. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 2 respondent to stop the illegal construction being made in Survey No. 427/1 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District by the un-official respondent, by considering and disposing of the Legal Notice sent by the petitioners on 05-12-2023, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PANDAMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M MANOHAR REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -— The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010096772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5129/2024 Between: Mopidevi Venkateswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.PANDAMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VI3AY WRIT PETITION No.5129 of 2Q_24 ORDER; The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in not stopping the illegal construction in Sy.No.427/1 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. 1. Sri Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao, learneid counsel for the Petitioners, addressed a letter dated 07.05.2025 to the Registrar (Judicial), seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition, as no cause of action arises. 2. Permission is accorded. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. 4. No order as to costs. 5. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to Sri Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri M Manohar Reddy, SC for Municipalities, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TF <0 HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.5129 of 2024 ^2 5 JUL 2025 rrentSec DISMISSING THE W.P. AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS I |jj|