HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI I.A.No.3 of 2026 (Recall Petition) in W.P.No.1272 of 2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 31.03.2026 GRKP, J I.A.No.3 of 2026 (Recall Petition) in W.P.No.1272 of 2026 Heard Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Applicants, Sri Vigneswar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri Gudapati Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities for Rayalaseema, Nellore and Prakasam Districts, Sri B. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Mortha Srinu Babu learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 2. This Application is filed by the Applicants (Unofficial Respondent Nos.9 & 10 in the Writ Petition) seeking recall of the Order passed by this Court dated 02.02.2026 in W.P.No.1272 of 2026. The operative portion of the Order passed by this Court dated 02.02.2026 is as under: 2 2. Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Pulivendula Municipality, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Pulivendula Municipality dated 08.01.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioners as well and the same is taken on record. Para 9 of the Written Instruction is usefully extracted hereunder: “9. It is submitted that this office has neither issued any demolition notice nor made any attempt to demolish the petitioners’ house. Further, action will be initiated for disposal of the pending BPS application filed by the petitioners strictly in accordance with the rules prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.225, MA & UD Department, dated 12.11.2025.” 3. The above extract would clearly indicate that the Respondents have neither issued a demolition Notice nor had made an attempt to demolish the Petitioners’ house. The above extract would also indicate that the Application submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 15.12.2025, under the Building Penalization Scheme (BPS) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.225, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 12.11.2025, is under consideration. 4. Having recorded the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to consider the Application of the Writ Petitioners dated 15.12.2025 (Ex.P.7) and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from today and communicate a copy of such Order to the Writ Petitioners forthwith. 5. Writ Petitioners are directed to submit a copy of this Order to the Commissioner, Pulivendula Municipality (Respondent No.8) within one week from today for effective compliance. 6. Needless to state that the Respondent Authorities are statutorily obligated to follow the principles of Natural Justice before passing the Speaking Order. 7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 3 3. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to the effect that the Writ Petitioner is seeking a direction to Respondent No.8 (Commissioner, Pulivendula Municipality) and his men not to interfere with the rights of the Petitioners in D.No.1-3-557/7 situated in Sy.No.159 of Peddarangapuram Village, Pulivendula Municipality, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 4. Having considered the prayer and the submissions in the Writ Petition, this Court had merely taken note of the Written Instructions that the Respondent Authorities are not interfering with the Writ Petitioners’ property and that the Respondents have neither issued a demolition notice nor had made an attempt to demolish the Writ Petitioners’ house. This Court has also noted that the Written Instructions had indicated that Writ Petitioners have submitted an Application for the regularization under the Building Penalization Scheme (BPs) in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.225, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 12.11.2025 and the same is under consideration. 5. Having considered these facts, this Court had disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to consider the Application submitted by the Writ Petitioners dated 15.12.2025 (Ex.P.7 therein) and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. 4 6. Sri Vigneswar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that in terms of the direction of this Court, Respondent Authorities have considered the Application dated 15.12.2025 and deferred the matter on the ground that the issue will be considered only after the adjudication of the title dispute. 7. Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Applicants would submit that a civil Suit bearing O.S.No.185 of 2021 filed by the Applicants (Unofficial Respondent Nos.9 & 10 in the Writ Petition) for Mandatory Permanent Injunction against the Writ Petitioners is pending for adjudication. The said Order dated 02.02.2026 passed by this Court had neither declared the rights of anyone nor had conferred any rights on anyone. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to countenance as to how the Applicants herein are prejudiced by the Order passed by this Court dated 02.02.2026 in W.P.No.1272 of 2026. In fact, in compliance with the Order of this Court, the Respondent Authorities, have acted in accordance with law, and have rightly deferred the consideration of the Application under the BPS until the civil dispute subsisting between the Writ Petitioners and the Unofficial Respondent Nos.9 & 10 (Applicants herein) is finally resolved. 8. Merely, on the ground that this Court has observed in the Order about the pendency of O.S.No.185 of 2021 and also pendency of the 5 W.P.No.35753 of 2025 will not entitle the Applicants to file an Application of this nature for recalling of the Order, inasmuch as the said material information had been disclosed by the Writ Petitioners in the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition. The direction given by this Court in its Order dated 02.02.2026 is also to the effect that the Respondent Authorities shall pass a Speaking Order ‘in accordance with law’. Therefore, this Application is not only devoid of any merit but is also an abuse of process. Accordingly, I.A.No.3 of 2026 is dismissed. No Order as to Costs. ____________ GRKP, J JKS 6 7