B Maruthi Raja Reddy vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 2849 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 10924 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:-

1)     Heard Sri. Gouthami Surapa Reddy, learned Counsel

for    the       Petitioner,   learned          Government          Pleader      for

Municipal Administration and Urban Development for

Respondent No.1 and Sri. N. Ranga Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2) The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following

relief:-

"......pleased to issue an appropriate Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of respondents 1 to 3 in allowing the construction of building without obtaining any permission from the municipal authorities for an extent of Ac.0.75 cents situated in Sy. No. 13-3 of Yenumulapalli Village making construction by the respondent No. 4 to 6 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Municipal Act and consequently direct the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner representation dated 15-04-2023 and to take appropriate action on illegal construction made by the respondents 4 to 6 as per law and to pass.................."

3) O.S.No.63 of 2022 between the parties - the

Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is pending

with respect to the land upon which the unofficial

Respondents are raising construction, in the Court of

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy. The Respondent No.2

initiated the proceedings for demolition of the construction

being raised by the unofficial Respondents and passed the

Provisional Order on 27.02.2023 upon the representation

of the Petitioner, directing the unofficial Respondents to

show-cause "as to why such construction without

obtaining permission from the Nagara Panchayat be not

demolished". The Provisional Order was also confirmed on

20.03.2023.

4) This petition was filed raising the grievance that, in-

spite of the Order of Confirmation, the authorities are not

implementing the same and the construction is still going

on.

5) Time was granted to Sri. N. Ranga Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel, to obtain instructions.

6) On the basis of the instructions, learned Standing

Counsel submits that the "Provisional Order" and the

"Order of Confirmation" were passed basing on the

representation submitted by the Petitioner, but in the said

representation the Petitioner did not disclose pendency of

O.S. No. 63 of 2022, between the parties, for partition,

which fact has been disclosed in the writ petition. He

submits that in view of the pendency of the Suit between

the parties, the authorities are not taking any action.

7) This Court finds that the reason disclosed for not

implementing the "Order of Confirmation", dated

20.03.2023, is not without force. The "Suit for Partition" is

pending between the parties. The Petitioner did not

disclose the pendency of the Suit before the 2nd

Respondent and consequently the "Order of Confirmation"

came to be passed. For implementation of that order, the

Petitioner has filed this present petition for mandamus.

8) No case is made out for issue of the directions prayed

for.

9)     The Writ Petition is dismissed.



     No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall also stand closed.

________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

Date: 04.05.2023.

SM/NSM.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION NO. 10924 OF 2023

Date: 04.05.2023

SM/NSM