Sri Sitharamanjaneya Devalaya ... vs P B Rama Mohan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3803 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                    WRIT APPEAL No. 573 of 2021
                      (Taken up through video conferencing)

Sri Sitharamanjaneya Devalaya Chelimi
Jeernoddarana Sangham, rep.by
Gaddam Parthasarathi S/o. Yetirajulu,
Aged 74 years, Occ: Business,
r/o. Door No.10/710-A,
Lingasettypalyam Street,
Dharmavaram, Ananthapuramu District
and others.                                                   .. Appellants

        Versus

P. B. Rama Mohan Naidu,
s/o. late Venkata Ramanappa Naidu,
aged 63 years, Occ: Retd. Employee,
r/o. Dr.No.23-537/3, Sai Nagar,
Dharmavaram, Ananthapuramu District
and others.                                                   .. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. P. Rajesh Babu

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Seshadri Goalla Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. A. Jagannadha Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.6,7,9 & 10 : Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.8 : Mr. N. Ranga Reddy ORAL JUDGMENT Dt: 28.09.2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants.

2. Also heard Mr. Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 to 4, Mr. A. Jagannadha Rao, Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration, appearing for respondent No.5, Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao,

learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent

Nos.6, 7, 9 and 10, and Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel

for respondent No.8.

3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 26.08.2021

passed in I.A. No.2 of 2021 in W.P. No.18167 of 2021, whereby the

learned single Judge on being prima facie satisfied that the writ

petitioners/respondents had shown sufficient cause for granting an

interim direction, directed the respondents therein to maintain

status-quo in respect of the subject land for a period of four weeks.

4. The allegations are that the respondent Nos.6 to 10/appellants

are trying to renovate or construct pond without obtaining any

permission from the respondent No.4/Municipality.

5. Since the learned single Judge, on perusal of the materials on

record, was prima facie satisfied that a case for interim order was made

out, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.

6. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of, granting liberty to the

appellants to file application for vacating the said order, if so advised. No

costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No. 573 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 28.09.2021

GM