APHC010359852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19218 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3506] Yerragorla Sriramulu ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: BANKA NAGESWARA RAO Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, GP FOR REVENUE CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 15th July 2026 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the and 5th respondents in not considering my grievance dated 23 06 2026 and further proceedings to issue a Layout permission to the 6th respondent to the land of an extent of Ac 0 66 cents situated in R S No 3754B Patapadu Village NTR District which is arbitrary unjust and against the principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 4th and 5th respondents not to issue any Layout permission to the 6th respondent and pass such other order and orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case”. 2 2. Heard Sri Banka Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-APCRDA. 3. With the consent of both the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 4. The petitioner claims to be owner of an extent of Ac.0.66 cents of land situated in R.S.No.375-4B, Patapadu Village, NTR District. The 6th respondent stated to have approached the petitioner expressing interest to develop the property. Though initially the petitioner inclined to execute the development agreement, later he stated to have backed out from the aforesaid development agreement. However, the 6th respondent has made an application before the official respondents for approval of layout, which is now under consideration. The petitioner thereafter made a representation, dated 23.06.2026, opposing the approval of layout based on the alleged development agreement and thus requested the respondents not to process the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, would urge that it would suffice to direct the 4th respondent to consider the objections filed by the petitioner while processing the application of the 6th respondent. 3 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent disputed submission of any such representation. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner is permitted to make another representation raising all objections within one week from today. Upon submission of such objections, the 4th respondent is directed to consider the same by giving a proper opportunity to not only the writ petitioner but also the 6th respondent and to pass appropriate speaking orders thereon. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 15.07.2026 BSM 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No: 19218 of 2026 Date: 15.07.2026 BSM