1 APHC010035342013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 32968/2013 Between: 1. MANUKONDA KISHORE,, S/O. GANGARAJU AGE 31 YEARS, R/O. JANGAREDDY GUDEM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. RANGA NAGAMANI,, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO AGE 49 YEARS, R/O. JANGAREDDY GUDEM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE JANGAREDDYGUDEM NAGARA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. THE COMMISSIONER JANGAREDDYGUDEM NAGARA PANCHAYAT, JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. KARRI SRIRAMI REDDY, S/O. SATYANARAYANA REDDY AGE 55 YEARS, R/O. ASWARAOPETA ROAD, OPP: KAKARLA NARASIMHA MURTHY COMPLEX, HEMANTH STUDIO, JANGAREDDYGUDEM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J DILEEP KUMAR 2. T V JAGGI REDDY 2 The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Smt. Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondent No.3. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: <For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in granting building permission in favor of the 3rd respondent vide B.A.NO.103/2013 dated 20.06.2013 for constructing C.C. Roof Ground Floor and First Floor in the land belongs to the petitioners situated in R.S. No.450/4, Near D.No.10-4-435, Ward No.10, Subrahmanya Swamy Temple Road (opp side), Jangareddygudem, West Godavari as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, highhanded and contrary to the procedure established by law and against to principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to restrain the 3rd respondent from constructing the building in our land situated in R.S.No.450/4 of Jangareddygudem in the interest of justice and pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.= 3. The above extract would indicate that the Writ Petitioners have challenged the grant of Building Permission in favour of the Unofficial Respondent No.3. 4. The Commissioner, Jangareddygudem Nagara Panchayat (Respondent Nos.1 and 2), has filed Counter Affidavit on 20.12.2013. Paras 4 and 5 of the Counter Affidavit would indicate that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, after having considered all the documents submitted by the Respondent No.3, were convinced and therefore, has granted permission for construction of a building. 3 5. It transpires from the Docket that this Court has not granted any Interim Order and the present Writ Petition stood over for consideration. 6. Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondent No.3, would submit that the present Writ Petition is misconceived and that if the Writ Petitioners are claiming any right over the private property, they may approach the Competent Court to establish the private right. He would also submit that in any case, the Writ Petitioners have not initiated any such steps. 7. This Court, having considered the facts mentioned above, is of the view that the present Writ Petition is misconceived, inasmuch as the action of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in granting Building Permission, in favour of the Respondent No.3, cannot be disputed by the Writ Petitioners. It is also stated categorically in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the said Respondents were convinced with all the material documents produced, particularly, the Registered Gift Deed dated 27.09.2012 granted to Respondent No.3 by his father one Sri Satyanarayana Reddy. 8. Having considered these facts, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. The present Writ Petition is not only devoid of any merit but is also an abuse of process. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not imposing any exemplary costs. 9. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:28.01.2026 Vns