APHC010288842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14443/2024 Between:

Koppula Srinivasulu and others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities

3. GP FOR REVENUE

4. J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following:

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“.... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not taking action against the 4^th respondent who is constructing Mosque & Islamic Centre instead of residential building in the land situated in Sy.No.422/2B, 1^st Ward, Markapur Municipality, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to take action against the 4^th respondent for violating Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017…”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the residents of the area on the southern side of the Current Office, Tarlupadu Road, 1^st Ward, Markapuram Municipality, Prakasam District. The residents of the said locality belong to various religion including Hinduism, Christianity etc., and live peacefully with unity and diversity. On 27.10.2022, the 4^th respondent Organization purchased a piece of land admeasuring 280 Sq.yards situated in Survey No.422/2B, Ward No.1, Markapuram Municipality, Prakasam District. On 29.01.2024, the Zonal President of the 4^th respondent Organization made an application for building permission to construct G+2 building on the said land. On 11.03.2024, the 3^rd respondent Municipality granted permission for the construction of an “Individual Residential Building” vide building permit No.1034/0182/B/MRKP/POBSA/2023. However, after obtaining permission for G+2 residential building, the 4^th respondent, through its Zonal President, laid the foundation stone to construct a Mosque and Islamic Center. Therefore, the petitioners, being the residents of the same locality, made a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 08.04.2024 stating that the proposed construction is located in a residential zone; that there is already a Masjid within approximately 150 meters; that it will cause disturbance to the public peace and it is contrary to the approved plan. But the respondents have not taken any against the 4^th respondent for initiating the construction of a building intended to be used for religious purpose.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for 1^st respondent and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for 3^rd respondent.

4. During hearing, learned Standing Counsel for 3^rd respondent furnished a copy of the instructions from the 3^rd respondent vide Roc.No.646/2024/G1, dated 02.11.2024, wherein it is stated that the Town Planning Officer enquired into the matter in the said locality and submitted a report recommending that the 4^th respondent has violated the conditions of the building plan issued on 11.03.2024. The report stated that the 4^th respondent is intending to construct a Mosque at the location instead of the residential house in violation of the Building Plan Rules as per G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017, and the Building Plan proceedings condition No.16. Based on these findings, the Town Planning Officer recommended for cancellation of the Building Plan No.1034/0182/B/MRKP/POBSA/2023, dated 11.03.2024 granted in favour of the 4^th respondent. In pursuance of the said recommendation, th