APHC010532812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 27617 OF 2025 Between: 1. Vicky Kumar Giri, aged 40 years, S/o Baiju Giri, R/o D.No.13-1-11, P.K. Street, Tirupati, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its PrI. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Tirupati Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioner, Tirupati. 3. The Deputy City Planner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondents revoking the permission granted for construction of Dt.21.07.2025 for the land covered in TS.No.4039/3 with ACC sheds bearing D.No.13-3-344/A7 Asst. No. 1012079472) an extent of 86.66Sq.yards situated in Tirupati Municipal 2 Corporation Area as illegal arbitrary and non other than interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of property violating the Injunction orders of the Hon'ble X Additional District Judge, Tirupati in the Judgment and Decree Dt.04-01-2021 in A.S.No.140 of 2017 in O.S.No.555/2009 on the above mentioned property and consequently suspend the revocation of the building permission on 24/07/2025 granted earlier by the respondents vide Building Permit No.1012/0186/B/TIR/NP/2025 Dt.21.07.2025 and further direct the respondents not to intervene in the construction of the building for the land covered in TS.No.4039/3 with ACC sheds bearing D.No.13-3-344/A7 Asst No. 1012079472 an extent of 86.66 Sq. yards situated in Tirupati Municipal Corporation, and to pass such other orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the revocation of building plan which was given Vide Permit No.1012/0186/B/TIR/NP/2025 Dt.21/07/2025 in proceedings Dt.24/07/2025 by the respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following order: 3 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27617 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri J.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri Potham Vengala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation in Rayalaseema Region and Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Andhra Pradesh. 2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondents revoking the permission granted for construction of Dt.21.07.2025 for the land covered in TS.No.4039/3 with ACC sheds bearing D.No.13-3- 344/A7 Asst. No. 1012079472) an extent of 86.66Sq.yards situated in Tirupati Municipal Corporation Area as illegal arbitrary and non other than interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of property violating the Injunction orders of the Hon'ble X Additional District Judge, Tirupati in the Judgment and Decree Dt.04-01-2021 in A.S.No.140 of 2017 in O.S.No.555/2009 on the above mentioned property and consequently suspend the revocation of the building permission on 24/07/2025 granted earlier by the respondents vide Building Permit No.1012/0186/B/TIR/NP/2025 Dt.21.07.2025 and further direct the respondents not to intervene in the construction of the building for the land covered in TS.No.4039/3 with ACC sheds bearing D.No.13-3-344/A7 Asst No. 1012079472 an extent of 86.66 Sq. yards situated in Tirupati Municipal Corporation, and to pass.…” 3. The Writ Petitioner has challenged the proceedings by which the Respondent Corporation has revoked the building permission granted to the Writ Petitioner. It transpires that the building permission is granted to the Writ Petitioner on 21.07.2025 (Ex.P3) and the same had been revoked vide proceedings dated 24.07.2025 (Ex.P6). The reason for revocation of the 4 building permit is as “the site falls in layout open space in L.P.No.55 of 1971, this plan cannot be accepted to permit. Hence, the same may be recommended for revoke.” 4. The facts on record would indicate that there has been a subsisting suit between the Writ Petitioner and the Municipal Corporation, Tirupati. The Writ Petitioner has purchased the subject land from one Sri Kanchi Raju Muni Sasidhar on a Registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.2025 (Ex.P1) bearing Doc.No.1842 of 2025 of an extent of Ac.86.66 Sq. yards. The vendor of the Writ Petitioner herein (Kanchi Raju Muni Sasidhar) has approached the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati by filing O.S.No.555 of 2009 seeking declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction. The Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati had dismissed the Suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 11.08.2017. The vendor of the Writ Petitioner herein filed First Appeal bearing A.S.No.140 of 2017. After consideration of the documentary evidence and depositions, the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati had rendered findings against the Municipal Corporation and in favour of the vendor of the Writ Petitioner. The findings and conclusion rendered by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 04.01.2021 are usually extracted herein. “Findings and Conclusion 1) The Municipal Council after approving the layout in L.P.No.55 of 1971, should have get the open space transferred to it within one year as per Rule 14 of Municipalities Layout Rules, 1970. 5 2) The Municipal Council did not enforce its right within three years thereafter and failed to obtain a Gift Deed from layout owner. 3) The Municipal Council did not make any effort even to recover possession of open space within the period of 12 years. 4) The Municipal Corporation was formed 36 years after approval of layout and till then no action was taken by the Municipal Council. 5) It is only on 01.06.2009 the Municipal Corporation issued notice under Section 405 instead of issuing the notice under Section 406. 6) The layout was though applied for S.No.4039/1,2,3 & 4, 4037/1 and 4038/1, but in Ex.B1, the S.Nos.4039/2, 3 & 4 are not shown. 7) The layout owner who got right and title, sold plaint schedule site to the vendor of plaintiff and conferred valid title on R.Chenchu Raghavaraju. 8) The plaintiff purchased the said site from R.Chenchu Raghavaraju under Registered Sale Deed and he conferred title on the plaintiff. 9) The plaintiff has proved his title, the title of his vendor and the title of his vendor’s vendor. 10) Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of title and consequential injunction as prayed for. 11) The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are not factually and legally sustainable and they are liable to be set aside. 6 The point is answered in favour of the appellant. In the result, the appeal suit is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.555 of 2009 are set aside and the suit is decreed with cots declaring the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and consequential injunction is granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Each party to this appeal do bear their own costs.” 5. On a query made by this Court, it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Respondent Corporation has not filed any Second Appeal before this Court, and therefore, the Judgment and Decree rendered by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.140 of 2017 dated 04.01.2021 (Ex.P2) has attained finality. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner has purchased the subject property on 31.03.2025 after ensuring that the Judgment and Decree in the First Appeal has attained finality. The extract of the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court would clearly indicate that the Respondent Corporation has failed to get the open space approved to it within Rule 14 of Municipalities Layout Rules, 1970 and that the Municipal Council did not make any effort even to recover the possession of the open space within the period of 12 years. With these findings, the Appeal Suit No.140 of 2017 was allowed, thereby granting Decree of Declaration of Title with consequential Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the possession of the 7 Plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Having suffered this Order, the Respondent Corporation has not carried this Order in Appeal, thereby the Order of the First Appellate Court has attained finality. This was the assurance on the part of the Writ Petitioner who have purchased the property from his vendor/Sri Kanchi Raju Muni Sasidhar on 31.03.2025. 7. Taking into consideration of the above facts, this Court vide Order dated 17.10.2025 had suspended the Revocation Proceedings dated 15.07.2025 (Ex.P6). It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that since the Revocation Order is suspended, the Writ Petitioner has proceeded with the direction. 8. In the light of the fact that the Respondent has suffered Decree in the year 2021, they are not entitled to raise the same plea inasmuch as the Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction granted by the First Appellate Court in favour of the Writ Petitioner has attained finality. 9. Needless to state, the principle that what cannot be obtained directly cannot be obtained indirectly would fully apply to the facts of the case. The Respondents, having been unsuccessful in the civil proceedings, ought not to raise a bogie claim of ownership on the open space in the layout, for the reasons recorded by the learned Appellate Judge. 10. In this view of the matter, the Revocation Proceedings dated 24.07.2025 (Ex.P6) is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 8 11. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 26.02.2026 RMR 9 76 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 27617 OF 2025 26.02.2026 RMR