APHC010323802026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 807 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-59 [3584] Mandadi Ramanayya and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant(s): Mr. V. Surya Kiran Kumar Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. A. Veerabhadra Rao, Addl.SC for VMRDA – R2 GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development – R1 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 21th July 2026 LISA GILL, CJ: Prayer in this Writ Appeal is for setting aside order dated 22.04.2026, passed by learned Single Bench, whereby W.P. No. 8506 of 2026 filed by present appellants/writ petitioners has been disposed of while directing Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, to expedite all interlocutory applications in all suits filed by official respondents for cancellation of sale deeds (in favour of the vendors of the present appellants) including I.A. No.Nil (GR No.5479) in I.A. No.1249 of 2019 and dispose of the 2 wa_807_2026 same in accordance with law within a period of six weeks after issuing notice to all necessary parties. 2. Present appellants/writ petitioners claim to have purchased plots in question from their vendor namely Ippaka Narasayamma. It is pleaded that subject plots had been allotted to their vendor in lieu of unconnected extent of land situated in Sy. No.370/3 of Madhurawada Village, which was taken for the purpose of formation of the very same layout. Alternate plots were allotted by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short, „VUDA‟), which is now succeeded by Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short, „VMRDA‟). 3. It is further pleaded that building plans had been sanctioned and petitioners started construction by depositing requisite fees. However, authorities were interfering with their possession on a fallacious premise that a civil suit had been filed pertaining to property for cancellation of sale deeds in favour of vendor of present appellants/writ petitioners. 4. Aggrieved of the above, W.P. No.8506 of 2026 was filed seeking a direction to 2nd respondent to refrain from interference in the possession of petitioners over the property as described i.e., plot Nos. 9 and 10 in VUDA approved layout L.P. No.16 of 2011. 3 wa_807_2026 5. Learned Single Bench taking note of written instructions furnished in Court by the Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA, who was present in Court on 22.04.2026, disposed of writ petition as under: “7. Under the present circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there has been no progress in the Suits filed by the Official Respondents. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, to expedite all pending Interlocutory Applications in all the Suits filed by the Official Respondents for Cancellation of Sale Deeds, including I.A.No. Nil (GR No.5479) in I.A.No.1249 of 2019, and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks from today, after issuing Notice to all necessary Parties. In any case, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam shall make an endeavour to complete the trial in all the pending Suits relating to Cancellation of Registered Sale Deeds of Plots in L.P.No.16 of 2011 within one year from today. 8. Since the Writ Petitioners herein are bona fide purchasers from the original owners and are in possession of Sale Deeds which are now sought to be cancelled, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, to implead them as necessary Parties, if a proper Application is filed by them within two (02) weeks from the date of uploading of the order on the website of this Court.” 6. It was further clarified that no observation had been made on merits of the case. 7. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argues that as of now there is no civil suit, which is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The suit in question by official respondents had been presented in year 2014 for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent sale deeds executed on 25.09.2010. 8. I.A. No.1249 of 2019 was filed seeking condonation of delay in the original unnumbered suit. This I.A. was allowed subject to respondents depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- as cost by 22.07.2023. This 4 wa_807_2026 amount was never deposited. Therefore, impugned order dated 22.04.2026, should be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for respondents refers to the written note received by her from the Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA, Visakhapatnam. It is affirmed therein that suit was filed by VUDA in 2014 for cancellation of alleged fraudulent sale deeds executed on 25.09.2010 in respect to plot Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 in layout L.P. No.16 of 2011 at Madhurawada village. 10. Court fee was deposited in the wrong account due to complications arising from VUDA to VMRDA transformation, which necessitated a separate application for a certificate. I.A. No.1249 of 2019 was indeed allowed conditionally, however, counsel failed to inform VMRDA office about this condition resulting in dismissal in default on 22.07.2023. I.A. No.nil/2026 in I.A. No.1249 of 2019, it is stated, has been filed on 21.04.2026 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC and the same is pending adjudication. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation submits that there is no interference in possession of appellants and construction raised thereon. It is submitted that no ground whatsoever is made out for interference in this appeal. 12. In the given facts and circumstances where a cloud is sought to be cast upon title of original vendor of appellants, we do not find any ground to cause interference in the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, which does not in 5 wa_807_2026 any manner lend prejudice to petitioners. Prayer in writ petition is for restraining respondents from interfering in possession of appellants over the property in question. It is the categoric case of respondents that no action shall be taken for interference as above except in accordance with due process of law. 13. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for appellants is unable to point out any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in impugned order, dated 22.04.2026. No other argument has been addressed. Writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J akn Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No 6 wa_807_2026 HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Appeal No:807 of 2026 DATE : 21.07.2026 AKN 69