Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19788 (AP)

SIRIMALLE GANESH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/9388/2025 · 2026-01-05

Harinath N

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010164922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9388/2025 Between: Sirimalle Ganesh The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 4. P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9388/2025 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema GP FOR REVENUE GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.9388 OF 2025 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 6 to 9 in forming an unauthorized layout over an extent of land admeasuring Ac.8.68 cents in Sy.No.825/2A, 2B of Darsi Revenue Village, Prakasam District. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.6 to 9 are in the process of creating third-party rights by offering to sell plots in an unauthorized layout. In this regard, the petitioner submitted representations on 20.01.2025 and 28.04.2025. 3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the proceedings dated 18.02.2025, whereby the Vice-Chairman of the Ongole Urban Development Authority called upon the 5th respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner and to take necessary steps for implementation of GOMs.No.10, dated 08.01.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner and the unofficial respondents are contesting O.S.No.46 of 2019, and when the civil dispute is pending consideration, the respondent authorities cannot pass orders granting layout approvals. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9 has filed a counter and submitted that the municipal authority, vide proceedings dated 17.11.2025, considered the issue and the objections raised by the petitioner and regularized the unauthorized layout. 5. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter and submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of an extent of land admeasuring Ac.8.68 3 cents in Sy.No.825/2 of Darsi Revenue Village, Prakasam Mandal. It is further stated in the counter that the writ petitioner appears to be attempting to settle a private dispute with the unofficial respondents through Government offices. The learned standing counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the layout of respondent Nos.6 to 9 has also been regularized. 6. It is further submitted that, by subsequent proceedings dated 23.10.2025, the layout was regularized by the 4th respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 9 submits that the petitioner has suppressed the details of the outcome of the civil suit. It is submitted that the injunction initially granted was vacated and that the CMA filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is further submitted that, having suppressed such material facts, the petitioner cannot claim any equities from this Court. 7. Considering the submissions made and also taking into account that the subsequent orders passed by the respondent authorities are not under challenge in the present writ petition, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication on merits. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 4 341 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.9388 OF 2025 Dated 06.01.2026 KGM