1 HN, J W.P.No.13674_2026 APHC010261982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13674/2026 Between: 1. P NAGA VENKATA RANGANADHA GUPTA, S/O. LATE P.ATCHUTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.23-22- 21/3/2, ONE TOWN AREA, SIVALAYAM STREET, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530001 2. POOSARLA VENKATA APPA RAO,, S/O. LATE POOSARLA ATCHUTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.23-22-21/3/1, ONE TOWN AREA, SIVALAYAM STREET, VISAKHAPATNAM-530001 3. POOSARLA NARAYANA RAO,, S/O. LATE POOSARLA ATCHUTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.23-22- 21/3/2, ONE TOWN AREA, SIVALAYAM STREET, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530001. 4. POOSARLA VENKATA SUBBA RAO,, S/O. LATE P.RANGANADHA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.101, PYRAMID RC APARTMENT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, SARAKKI, J.P.NAGAR, BANGLORE SOUTH, BANGLORE, KARNATAKA-560078. 5. POOSARLA THAMMANNA CHETTY,, S/O. LATE P.SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.50-37-27/51, BALAJI APARTMENTS, SEETHAMMAPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530016. (PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JEERU SATYA VARA PRASAD REDDY, S/O. LATE APPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.9-6-27/1/2, SIVAJIPALEM, NEAR SIVAJI PARK, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522241. 2. THE GREATER VISHAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM- 530001. 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BHIMUNIPANAM ZONE, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 HN, J W.P.No.13674_2026 - 530001. 4. KOTA MALIKARJUNA RAO, S/O. LATE K.APPALA NARASAYYA, R/O. D.NO.15-11-24, GUPTA STREET, BHEEMUNIPATANAM VISAKAPATANAM-531163. 5. PULUSU SATYANARAYANA REDDY, S/O. KOTI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.604, NAMBURU, PEDAKAKANI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522508. 6. SATTI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA REDDY, S/O. S.NARSIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.12-5-38, NEW COLONY, ANAKAPALLI TOWN, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. SAMVRUDDI ESTATES, ESTABLISHED AT FLAT NO.503, D. NO.9- 17-27/1, BOPANA'S SB RESIDENCY, CBM COMPOUND, GRATER VISAKAPATNAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER, PENUMATSA JAYA KRISHNA RAJU S/O. P.VIJAYA RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.106, I BLOCK, THE ADRESS APARTMENTS, NEAR SREE KANYA CINE GLITZ, 100 FEET ROAD, MITHULAPURI, MADHURAWADA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM BASTI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. MINT UNIT LLP, (LLP IDENTIFICATION NO.ACJ-1203, PAN NO.ACBFM4751H), OFFICE AT FLAT NO.103, BLOCK-C, SLVAMARAVATIGRAND 2, INNER RING ROAD, GUNADALA, RAMAVARAPADU, VIJAYAWADA URBAN, NTR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS, NAVEEN VARMA SAGI, S/O. S.R.P.VISHU VARMA, AND BALA SIVARAM ANANTHAGIRI YADAV, S/O. BALA ANANTHAGIRI AGED MAJORS, R/O. D.NO.10/200, SECOND FLOOR, OPPOSITE AMERICAN HOSPITAL, ELURU ROAD, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 9. GUNNAM SATISH, S/O. G.PAPARAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.401, MAHALAKSHMI RESIDENCY, LONG STREET, BHEEMUNIPATNAM TOWN, VISAKHAPATNARN. 10. MALLA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE LATE JOSEPH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.1- 132, RAMALAYAM STREET, PENDURTI, VISAKHAPATNARN DISTRICT. ...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 toeased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in issuing Proceedings vide B.A.No.1086/0009/LP/ZI/2 025 dated 18.02.2026 approving the Residential Layout Plan in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.15.03 Cents situated in Sy.Nos.73 (73P) and 74 (74P) of Chittivalasa Village, Beelimili Zone, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnarn District in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules, 2017 and the AP Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 R/w 3 HN, J W.P.No.13674_2026 the AP Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, the Visakhapatnarn Municipal Corporation Act, 1979 without even looking into the Petitioners' Representation/Objections and Legal Notices dated 18.06.2025 and 31.10.2025, 05.12.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19(g), 21 and 300Aofthe Constitution of India and consequently quash the Layout Permit granted to the Respondents and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the Proceedings vide B.A.NO.1086/0009/LP/ZI/2025 dated 18.02.2026 (Layout Plan) issued in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.15.03 Cents situated in Sy.Nos.73 (73P) and 74 (74P) of Chittivalasa Village, Beelimili Zone, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam pistrict, disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR The Court made the following: 4 HN, J W.P.No.13674_2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13674 of 2026 ORDER: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent authorities in proceeding with the grant of approval for the layout as sought by respondent Nos.7 and 8. It is submitted that petitioners are challenging the action of respondent authorities in issuing proceedings vide BA.No.1086/0009/LP/ZI/2025, dated 18.02.2026. 2. The primary contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioners have claim over property in Sy No 68/13,14,15,17,19,20,21,23,24,25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 73, 74, 75/1, 76/6, 76/9, 76/10, 77/3 and 23/2 of Chittivalasa Village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Vishakapatnam District. In that regard they had O.S.No.153 of 2025 on the file of VII Additional District Court, Visakhapatnam seeking partition of the family property. It is also submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 10 are also party defendants in the suit, as such, they are aware of the claim of the petitioners over the subject property. 3. It is submitted that, the respondent No.4 has raised claim over the subject property under the guise of wills dated 10.01.1965 and 05.01.1988. It is submitted that the subject property is ancestral property and does not belong to M.Chinna Mahalakshamamma or Kota Mahalakshmamma or the respondent No.4. It is submitted that the entitlement of share in the family property of the parties to OS.No.153 of 2025 is not yet decided. 4. It is submitted that the petitioners have addressed a legal notice dated 18.06.2025 and a complaint dated 31.10.2025 duly requiring the respondent 5 HN, J W.P.No.13674_2026 Nos.2 and 3 to take into account the objections of the petitioners and a layout permit ought not to be issued pending the adjudication of claims of the parties to the partition suit. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 to 9 submits that the respondent No.3 is not the competent authority to adjudicate disputes relating to title raised by third parties while considering the objections and processing applications for grant of layout permission or building permission. It is submitted that the petitioners are strangers and have raised some frivolous objections and the respondent authorities cannot be expected to pass detailed reasonable orders on each and every frivolous claim raised by any third party. It is also submitted that as on date the petitioners have not established their title and the Court also has not granted any interim order on the subject property. 6. The learned Senior counsel further submits that Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 empowers the Commissioner to consider the objections, if any, raised by any person and to take appropriate action, including cancellation or revocation of the development permission issued under the Act. It is also submitted that the contentions of the petitioners could have been considered only if there is an order of the competent Court in favor of the petitioners. 7. The objections raised by the petitioners are required to be considered by responded No.2, under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan 6 HN, J W.P.No.13674_2026 Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016. Accordingly, the writ petition can be disposed off by directing the respondent No.2 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner with reference to Section 87 of the said Act, and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon. Any third-party rights created over the subject property shall be subject to the outcome of the orders to be passed by respondent No.2. 8. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed off. It is needless to mention that respondent No.2 shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner in terms of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:16.07.2026 NKA/KGM Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 HN, J W.P.No.13674_2026 137 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13674 of 2026 Date: 16.07.2026 NKA