APHC010540462024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28268/2024 Between:

Choppa Ramachandra Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. N ASHWANI KUMAR

2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following:

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of respondent No.2 in allowing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in proceeding with the construction works in Sy.No.65/1 and Sy.No.65/3 an extent of Ac.1.51 cents of Gollavanigunta village, Akkarampalli group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to remove the unauthorized construction made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in Sy.No.65/1 and Sy.No.65/3 an extent of Ac.1.51 cents of Gollavanigunta village...”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land in Sy.No.65/1 and Sy.No.65/3 to an extent of 1.51 cents of Gollavanigunta village, Akkarampalli group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District under various registered sale deeds. While the matter being so, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with one T.Rangaiah Naidu and 17 others filed a suit vide O.S.No.345 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati as against the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed and the same was further confirmed in the appeal. Matter being so, respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with some unsocial elements tried to enter into the subject land along with JCB and tractors and tried to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner’s property. As such, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati and Circle Inspector of Police, Alipiri, tirupati on 11.11.2024. In pursuance of which, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have started to dig a pit and started construction in the subject land. On 18.11.2024, the petitioner has made a complaint to respondent No.2 requesting him to take action as against the illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.3 and 4. As no action has been initiated so far, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel representing unofficial respondent Nos.3 and 4 has filed a memo dated 30.12.2024 bringing it to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the complaint made by the petitioner on 18.11.2024, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice to the unofficial respondents on 11.12.2024 under Section 452(1) and 461(2) of APMC Act, 1995 and thereafter have also issued a notice No.384/1012/TPT/UC/2024 dated 14.12.2024 revoking the building permission given in favour of the unofficial respondents under Section 450 of APMC Act, 1955 and directed the unofficial respondent No.3 to remove the unauthorized construction in their site at her own cost.

4. In view of the fact that respondent No.2 has already initiated action by duly giving a notice to the unofficial respondents on 14.12.2024 directing to remove the unauthorized constructions made by them, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to initiate further course of action in pursuance of the notice dated 14.12.2024 in accordance with law and to see that the unofficial respondents do not proceed further with any constructions.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

___________