APHC010716102013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11254/2013 Between: 1. GUBBALA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, E.G. DIST., S/O LATE NARAYANA MURTHY,53 YEARS, D.NO.70-19- 96,GODARIGUNTA,KAKINADA - 3.EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. MUMMANA SURYA RAO, S/O LATE GURUVULU, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-93-10, SECTOR 5, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM -530 017. PETITIONER NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.24.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2025 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. COMMISSIONER KAKINADA MUN CORP E G DIST ANR, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 2. BUILDING INSPECTOR, IIIRD DIVISION,KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT , PADMINI ENCLAVE, 5TH LANE, 4/7, MAHATMA GANDHI INNER RING ROAD, ANNAPURNA NAGAR, GUNTUR , ANDHRA PRADESH- 522034. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT 25.02.2022 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO 01 OF 2021. 4. JAYENDRA NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (REGD NO.491/2015) AT D.NO 70-14-14/1 JAYENDRA NAGAR, KAKINADA- 533003 E.G DISTRICT REP BY ITS PRESIDENT. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURTS ORDER DT 04.09.2023 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO 01 OF 2015. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the action of the respondents in trying to construct a compound wall over an extent of 700 sq. yards of land belonging to the petitioner situated in Sy.No.127/4 (old 127), Ward No.30, Block No.70 of Ramanaiahpeta, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to make any construction whatsoever over an extent of 700 sq. yards of land belonging to the petitioner situated in Sy.No.127/4 (old 127), Ward No.30, Block No.70 of Ramanaiahpeta, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East Godavari District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 13934 OF 2013 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 direct the respondents not to make any construction whatsoever over an extent of 700 sq. yards of land belonging to the petitioner situated in Sy.No.127/4 (old 127), Ward No.30, Block No.70 of Ramanaiahpeta, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East Godavari District pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 4 OF 2013(WPMP 163948 OF 2013 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 55603 OF 2015 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 implead the Petitioner as Party Respondent No.3 in the present Writ Petition i.e., W.P.M.P.No.13934 of 2013 in W.P.No.11254 of 2013 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to implead the proposed respondent No,3 herein as respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.11253 of 2013 and pass 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 may be pleased to implead the petitioner herein i.e. Mummana Surya Rao to come on record as Writ Petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.11254 of 2013 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) APHC010490172015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13428/2015 Between: 1. VASAMSETTY APPARAO,& 2, S/O SURYANARANA, AGE: 61 YEARS, D.NO.3-17-44, OPP. VIRIAYAK TEMPLE, GODAVARIGUNTA, KAKINADA URBAN MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. VASAMSETTY MAHALAKSHMI., W/O APPARAO, AGE: 50 YEARS, D.NO.3-17-44, OPP. VITLAYAK TEMPLE, GODAVARIGUNTA, KAKINADA URBAN MANCLAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. DUVVURI NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O V6NKATA,SUBBARAO REP. BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY - GUBBALA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O NARAYANA MURTHY AGE: 54 YEARS, D.NO.70-19- 96; JAYAPRAKASHNAGAR COLONY KAKINADA URBAN MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MUMMANA SURYA RAO, S/O LATE GURUVULU, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-93-10, SECTOR 5, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM -530 017. PETITIONER NO.4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.24.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2025 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KAKINADA MUN CORP COMMISSIONER E G DIST ANOT, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, DIVISION NO.III KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PADIMI ENCLAVE, 5TH LANE, 4/7, MAHATMA GANDHI INNER RING ROAD, ANNAPURNA NAGAR, GUNTUR - ANDHRA PRADESH - 522034. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.25.02.2022 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A. 1 OF 2021. 4. JAYENDRA NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (REGD.NO.491/2015) AT DOOR NO.70 - 14 - 14/1 JAYENDRA NAGAR, KAKINADA - 533 003 E.G.DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DT.04.09.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.2 OF 2015 (WPMP NO.55586 OF 2015) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and development of the land of the petitioners in L.P.No.230/62 in Ward No.30, Block No.70, Patta No.55, Ramanaiahpet, in Old Sy.No.127 and present R.S.No.127/4 under document Nos.1365/2009, 1364/2009 and 1362/2009 to an extent of 750 sq. yards, 750 sq. yards and 220 sq. yards respectively as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violatiave of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the development carried on by the petitioners in their respective plots IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 17639 OF 2015 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the pOssession and enjoyment of the plots of the petitioners in Ward No.30, Block No.70, Patta No.55, Ramanaiahpet, in Old Sy.No.127 and present R.S.No.127/4 under document Nos.1365/2009, 1364/2009 and 1362/2009 to an extent of 750 sq. yards, 750 sq. yards and 220 sq. yards, 750 sq. yards and 220 sq. yards respectively pending disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP 55586 OF 2015 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 implead the Petitioner as Party Respondent No.3 in the present Writ Petition i.e., W.P.M.P.No.17639 of 2015 in W.P.No.13428 of 2015 and pass IA NO: 5 OF 2015(WPMP 83916 OF 2015 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to implead the proposed respondent No-3 herein as respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.13428 of 2015 and pass 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 may be pleased to implead the petitioner herein i.e. Mummana Surya Rao to come on record as Writ Petitioner No.4 in W.P.No. 13428 of 2015 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 3. 0 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 11254 of 2013 and 13428 of 2015 ORDER: 1. The learned Senior counsel, Sri K.S.Murthy, appearing for the petitioners submits that in both the writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioners in L.P.No.230/62 in Ward No.30, Block No.70, Ramanaiaha Peta, Kakinada, forming part and parcel of survey No.127(RS. No.127/4). 2. The dispute in the writ petitions is with regard to the property of the petitioners, which is also claimed by the respondent authorities on the ground that the same allegedly forms part of the open area of L.P.No.230/62. 3. The petitioners submit that their property is distinct and different and does not form part and parcel of the open areas of L.P.No.230/62. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a memo dated 18.11.2025, whereby the petitioners have brought on record the record the proceedings of the Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, dated 21.07.2018, and the report of the Commissioner, Kakinada, dated 30.01.2019. The extract of the layout register book indicating the details of LP.No.230/62 and the Town Surveyor’s remarks, along with the extract of the open space register, have also been filed. 4. In order to ascertain the inclusion or exclusion of the petitioners’ property in the layout referred to above, this Court directed the respondent authorities to place on record the copy of the original layout as maintained in their offices. An ambiguity arose since the layout is stated to have been prepared on 23.06.1985, whereas the approval of the layout is of the year 1962. 5. None of the respondents were able to satisfy this Court regarding the validity of such a layout. Further, when a direction was issued to produce the copy of the original layout, the same could not be produced by any of the respondents. The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit stating that the Municipal Corporation is not interfering with the extent of land claimed by the petitioners and that it is the responsibility of the impleaded respondent, namely Jayandra Nagar Welfare Association, to resolve the issue between the petitioners and the association. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent submits that the writ petitions may be disposed off by recording the contention of the Municipality that they are also not interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property forming the subject matter of the writ petitions. 7. Considering the submissions, both the writ petitions can be disposed off by recording the contention of the respondent Municipality that it is neither interfering with the petitioner’s property nor claiming any right over the petitioner’ property. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent also does not dispute the contention of the Municipality and submits that the 4th respondent was impleaded only to place its point of view insofar as the claim of the petitioners is concerned. 8. Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that they are neither disputing the claim of the petitioners nor claiming any right over the property of the petitioners, the writ petitions are liable to be disposed off. It is pertinent to mention that, without the original layout plan of L.P.No.230/62, none of the respondents can substantiate their interference and none of the respondents can claim any right, interest, or claim over the property of the petitioners as a vested right, purportedly accrued on account of the layout. 9. On these considerations, both the writ petitions are disposed off by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner’s schedule properties in any manner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:08.01.2026 NKA 258 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs:11254 of 2013 and 13428 of 2015 Date: 08.01.2025 NKA