1 APHC010553692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 28943/2025 Between: 1. CHAVALI BALAKRISHNA, S/O. VENKATESWARLU , AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. MARATIPALEM, BANDAR ROAD, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ONGOLE. 4. MADDELA NARASIMHA RAO, S/O.RAMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS R/O.D.NO.19-028-017, BANDAR ROAD, MARATIPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y NARAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANANDA KUMAR VEJANDLA 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2 The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Prathap Reddy, learned Counsel appearing online on behalf of Sri Yannam Narapa Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Ongole Municipal Corporation and Sri Anand Kumar V, learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondent No.4. 2. The Unofficial Respondent No.4 herein has filed Counter Affidavit on 26.12.2025. Para 2 of the Counter Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder: “2. It is submitted at the very outset that the entire writ petition has been rendered completely infructuous and without any surviving cause of action because the building alleged to be unauthorised has been thoroughly examined and fully regularised by the 2nd respondent Ongole Municipal Corporation under the Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Buildings Constructed Unauthorizedly and in Deviation to the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2025 notified vide G.O.Ms.No.225 MA&UD Department dated 12-11-2025. The competent authority has issued detailed penalisation and regularisation proceedings bearing No. BPS2025/PRK/OGL/13/004021 dated 19-12-2025 after physical verification of the site, scrutiny of submitted plans, documents and photographs, and confirmation that the building satisfies all eligibility criteria under the scheme. The total penalisation charges amounting to ₹81,259 have been duly paid in two instalments through net banking on 11-12-2025 and 18-12-2025. The proceedings explicitly state that the document itself shall be treated as Occupancy Certificate and that all enforcement proceedings and actions initiated or contemplated against the said building stand withdrawn. Copies of the regularisation proceedings, attested building plans showing ground, first and second floors, payment acknowledgements and all related documents are annexed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 3 3. The above extract would indicate that the Unofficial Respondent No.4 has made an Application for regularisation of the deviations under G.O.Ms.No.225, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department dated 12.11.2025 and that vide Proceeding dated 19.12.2025, after physical verification of the site and scrutiny of the Plan documents and the photographs, had imposed penalization charges and the same have been paid by the Unofficial Respondent No.4 herein on 11.12.2025 & 18.12.2025. It is also stated that in view of the Proceedings dated 19.12.2025, the Enforcement Proceedings and actions initiated against the Unofficial Respondent No.4 stood withdrawn. 4. Despite the fact that this Counter Affidavit was filed way back on 26.12.2025, there is no particular denial by the Writ Petitioner, inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner has not filed any Re-joinder. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the deviation/complaints raised by the Writ Petitioner have been regularized by the Official Respondents under the Building Penalization Scheme, 2025, this Court is of the view that no further consideration is necessary. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:09.03.2026 Vns