ORDER :

This writ petition for a Mandamus is filed to declare the impugned order dated 02.01.2020 of 3rd respondent in granting B.P.S. in favour of 7th respondent as illegal and violative of G.O.Ms.No.14 (MA & UD (M)) Department, dated 04.01.2019 and consequently prayed to set aside the impugned order passed in favour of the 7th respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and Sri Ch.Madhav, learned counsel representing Sri K.V. Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent No.7. None appeared for respondent No.6-LIC Housing Finance Limited.

3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land in an extent of 220 sq. yards covered by R.S.No.433/3 of Gunadala Village in Vijayawada Rural Mandal. It is stated that she has purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 26.11.2001 and got the said land regularized under L.R.S. scheme from the then V.G.T.M. UDA, Vijayawada as per proceedings dated 05.07.2012 and thereafter raised ACC roofed shed and has been paying the taxes to the Municipality regularly.

4. It is her case that the 7th respondent also purchased a vacant site on the northern side of site of the petitioner in the year 1995 under a registered sale deed dated 31.03.1995 and got the same also regularized in the L.R.S. scheme from the then V.G.T.M. UDA of Vijayawada. It is stated by the petitioner that when the 7th respondent earlier tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of her land, that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.1259 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada for permanent injunction and that a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner against the 7th respondent in I.A.No.1845 of 2017 and the same was made absolute on 10.01.2019 on merits. It is further stated that 7th respondent who purchased her property in the year 1995 , kept it vacant for some time and thereafter applied for approval of plan initially for G+1 in the year 2016 and the same was approved as per proceedings dated 15.07.2016, but she did not commence the construction and subsequently on 02.06.2018, the 7th respondent got her compound wall demolished along with toilet on the northern side of the property of the petitioner and encroached into the site of the petitioner in an extent of 20 sq. yards while the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner was in force and later on the 7th respondent applied for another plan in the year 2018 for stilt with G+2. It is stated that the said approval of the plan was obtained by the 7th respondent for more extent than the extent to which she got title. According to the petitioner, the 7th respondent is only entitled for regularization only to an extent of 207 sq. yards, but she has obtained it for 220 sq. yards. Therefore, alleging that the very approval of plan for total extent of 220 sq. yards is illegal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

5. The 7th respondent filed counter denying the material averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that the 7th respondent is the original owner of the property in an extent of 220 meters in R.S.No.433/3 in LIC colony and her father purchased the said property in her favour while she was minor in the year 1995 and further stated that the 7th respondent has applied for permission for construction of ground and first floor of RCC building in her property and the municipal authorities accorded permission as per proceedings dated 15.07.2016 and the construction commenced and on 04.01.2018, the 7th respondent noticed that the petitioner has encroached on to the 3 feet into her property and constructed a wall and she lodged a report in Crime No.13