1 APHC010112412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 6052/2026 Between: 1. SRI CHALLA NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D NO. 18/2A, NENNURUPADU VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523270. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE KANIGIRI MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS.. COMMISSIONER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523230. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523230. 4. SMT MULE SUSHEELA, W/O. CHINNA SUBBAIAH AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D NO. 3-12/A, BAYYANNAPALEM VILLAGE, G MEKAPADU MAZARA, KANDUKUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP- 523105 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Sri B. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri G. Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The Writ Petitioner herein is one of the Plaintiffs in O.S.No.330/2021 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri seeking relief of cancellation of Sale Deed against the 4th Respondent herein, who is one of the Defendants in the Suit. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the Suit, the Respondent No.4 approached the Respondent No.2 by filing an Application seeking approval of the building plan. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would also submit that the Writ Petitioner has also submitted a Representation to Respondent No.2 dated 28.02.2026 (Ex.P.1) requesting the Authority not to process the Application submitted by the Unofficial Respondent No.4 and to restrain the said Respondent No.4 from making construction on the basis that there is civil dispute and Suit is pending in this regard. 3. On query made by the Court whether there is any Interim Injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri against the Defendant/Respondent No.4 herein. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that there is no such Order. Since the civil dispute is already subsisting between the Writ Petitioner and the Unofficial Respondent No.4, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the Writ Petitioner to approach the Civil Court for placing on record the subsequent events such as the construction alleged to have been undertaken by the Unofficial Respondent No.4 in the Suit subject land. Instead of approaching the Civil Court, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 3 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the photographs, which are placed on record (Ex.P.5), there shall be a direction to all the parties including the Unofficial Respondent No.4 to maintain Status-quo obtaining as on today for a period of eight (8) weeks from today in order to enable the Writ Petitioner herein (one of the Plaintiffs in O.S.No.330/2021) to approach the Civil Court by filing an Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, within two (2) weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court, for seeking necessary reliefs by projecting the subsequent events. Upon presentation of such Interlocutory Application, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri shall consider the same in accordance with law and on the merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (6) weeks from the date of filing of the I.A under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2. 5. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:03.03.2026 Vns