Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Krishna District Agro ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 March, 2021
Bench: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
:PRESENT: |
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO: 5668 OF 2021 :
Between:
The Krishna District Agro Chemical Marketers Welfare Assicoation,
(Regd.No.386/2000) rep., by its President Posani Nageswara Rao S/o Subba
Rao, aged about 66 Years, H.No.40. 7-5, Trisul Towers, Moghalrajpuram Road,
Vijayawada, Krishna District
... Petitioner
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and
Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Capital City,
Guntur District.
The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishna District, Vijayawada.
The Tahsildar lbrahimpatnam Mandal, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, lbrahimpatnam,
Krishna District.
5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer ibrahimpatnam, lbrahimpatnam
Mandal, Krishna District.
6. Thummapalem Grampanchayat, rep. by its Panchayath Secretary,
Thummalapalem, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
7. The Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development Authority, rep., by its
Commissioner, Lenion Center, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
BON
weeees Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to
issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly In the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to construct Gram
Sachivalaym In the Open area in the final Lay out sanctioned by the 7" Respondent
vide LP.NO.94/2013/VWJA, File No.Rc.C5/2493/2013 in R.S.No.9/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 of
Thummalapaelm Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, is arbitrary, illegal,
contrary to law and in violation of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the Respondents not to make any constructions in the open area in
the final lay plan in R.S.No.9/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,and 8 of Thummalapalem Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, vide final Lay out L.P.NMo.94/2013/VJA, File
No.Rc.C5/2493/2013 of the 7" Respondent.
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the
Respondents not to make any constructions in the open area in the final lay plan
R.S.No.9/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,and 8 of Thummalapalem Village, |Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,
Krishna District, vide final Lay out L.P.NMo.94/2013/VJA, File No.Rc.C5/2493/2013 of
the 7" Respondent, pending disposal of WP 5668 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit
filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Subba Rao Korrapati
Advocate for the Petitioner, and of GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, Advocate
for the Respondents and the Court made the following.
ORDER:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. Koti Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel representing 6% respondent and
Sri K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader
. representing 7th respondent.
Learned Standing Counsel for 6 respondent states that as on date,
there is no plan to construct any building in the open space.
However, learned counsel for the 7th respondent raises an
interesting argument and states that what is earmarked for open space
does not exclusively belong to the residents of the colony in the layout.
According to him, the construction is being planned as per the master
plan of the area and that since it is earmarked for a public purpose, the
petitioner cannot object to the same. He also contends that the judgment
referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the
facts of the case as the plan sanctioning authority is not made a party to
this writ petition.
In the opinion of this Court, these are issues, which need to be
determined in the writ petition. |
List the matter on 07.4.2021, for counters.
Till then, the existing status quo should be maintained by both the
Sd/-E.KameswaraRdo
ASSISTANT RE TRAR
IITTRUE COPY!
For SECTIO OFFICER
ro . ees ne
1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, -
Secretariat, Velagapudi, State of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati Capital City,
Guntur District. :
The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishna District, Vijayawada.
The Tahsildar Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ibrahimpatnam,
Krishna District.
5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer iprahimpatnam, lbrahimpatnam
Mandal, Krishna District.
6. The Panchayath Secretary, Thummapalem Grampanchayat, Thummalapalem,
lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
7. The Commissioner, Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development Authority,
Lenion Center, Vijayawada, Krishna District(RR 1 to 7 by RPAD)
8. One CC to Sri. Subba Rao Korrapati Advocate [OPUC]
9. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Developement ,High Court Of Andhra
Pradesh. [OUT]
10.One spare copy
PON
PR
/
/ mo
/ HIGH COURT
DVSSJ
DATED:17/03/2021
LIST THE MATTER ON 07 .4.2021, FOR COUNTERS
ORDER
WP.No.5668 of 2021
STATUS QUO
