1 APHC010237202013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 27968/2013 Between: 1. V. SIVASANKAR REDDY, S/O. V. AMPI REDDY AGED 56 YEARS, D. NO. 12-4-245, OBULADEVNAGAR, ANANTAPUR TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR, REP BY THE COMMISSIONER, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF TOWN, PLANNING, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUMMATHI VENKATESULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P. VENGALA REDDY (S C FOR MUN CORP ATP) The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Kummathi Venkatesulu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the first respondent in erecting the caution board in the petitioners land and interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of 0.36 cents in Sy.No. 277/2, Sy. 276/2 and in Sy.No.276/3 situated in Anantapur town, Anantapur District is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of the Article 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The Docket of this Court would indicate that on the 2nd listing i.e., on 11.10.2013, this Court was pleased to grant permission to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to carry-out the corrections in the additional material that is filed by the Petitioner. On query made by this Court, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that corrections have not been carried out so far. Vide Order dated 22.10.2013, this Court had directed the Respondents to file Counter Affidavit and on 29.10.2013, this Court had granted time to the Respondents to file additional Counter Affidavit. Counter Affidavit and additional Counter Affidavits are on record. 4. The facts in this case would disclose that the Petitioner claims his property as ancestral and therefore, he is seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in erecting the caution board in the land belonging to the Writ Petitioner with a further direction not to interfere with the peaceful possession in an extent of Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.Nos.277/2, 276/2 and 276/3 situated in Anathapur Town. 3 5. It transpires from the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the Respondent No.1 is trying to allot open space of an extent of Ac.0.36 cents in the abovementioned survey numbers while it is the ancestral property of the Writ Petitioner. It is also stated in the Affidavit that despite best efforts made by the Petitioner to get more information from the Office of the Respondents, he has not been able to secure anything except that similar information was sought by one Sri P. Raghuram. 6. The Respondent No.1 has denied the averments of the Writ Petitioner and it has been stated that the subject land is under possession of the Municipal Corporation from 1966 and it is proposed for development of a Park. It is also stated that in the layout that is approved by the Director of Town Planning, Andhra Pradesh, in L.P.No.77/66, the said land is earmarked and reserved for open space left for public purposes and for utilization towards community purposes. It is also stated that in order to protect the said land, the Municipal Corporation has erected a caution board. 7. In the additional Counter Affidavit, it is stated that as per the records available in the Corporation, one layout plan in Sy.Nos.277/2 and 276/2B of Ananthapuramu Municipality is sanctioned as L.P.No.77/66 in favour of one Sri V. Ampi Reddy. Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1, would submit that Sri V. Ampi Reddy is none other than the father of the Writ Petitioner herein. This layout plan, which is available in the record of the Respondents, would clearly state that the layout plan itself was got approved by Sri V. Ampi Reddy. It is also stated in the additional Counter Affidavit that the subject land is shown as open space in the layout plan for the purpose of developing Park or Playground etc. It is also stated that Sri V. Ampi Reddy, who is the father of the Writ Petitioner, has implemented the approved layout plan bearing L.P.No.77/66 by selling away the house plots to various persons and handed over the open space to Corporation for development of Park or Playground etc., for community purposes. It is also submitted that the open space ought to have been surrendered to the 4 Municipal Corporation but the developer (Sri V. Ampi Reddy) did not surrender the said land by executing a Gift Deed. It is therefore submitted in the additional Counter Affidavit that Sri V. Ampi Reddy cannot claim any right over the open land and similarly his son/legal representative (the Writ Petitioner herein) also would have no right to claim anything with regard to the open land. 8. Having perused the contents of the Counter Affidavit and the additional Counter Affidavit dated 10.10.2013 and 12.11.2013 respectively, this Court has also perused the record to see whether the Petitioner has filed any Re-joinder to address the contentions raised by the Respondents. It transpires that no Re-joinder has been filed. Since no such Re-joinder has been filed by the Writ Petitioner rebutting the contentions of the Respondents, this Court would deem it that the Writ Petitioner has no defense to offer as against contentions of the Respondents. 9. In this view of the matter, this Court would find that the prayer of the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:05.03.2026 Vns