Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nuthalapati Aparna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 May, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.13338 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Authority for the
respondent No.1, Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned standing
counsel has accepted notice for the 2nd respondent and Sri N.
Srihari, learned standing counsel has accepted notice for the 3rd
respondent.
2. The grievance raised in the writ petition is that the unofficial
respondent No.4-Tejavath Balaji is raising certain constructions
pursuant to the building permission dated 19.12.2022 and
02.03.2022 Exs.P.1 and P.2.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with
others filed O.S.No.251 of 1984 on the file of First Additional
Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada against the defendants in which
the vendor of the 4th respondent was also party. Amongst the
plaint schedule properties, Item No.1 was with respect to
R.S.No.559/2 (whole no.) area Ac.2.57 cents. The suit was
dismissed on 30.10.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner
filed A.S.No.1 of 2001 pending in this Court in which interim
direction has also been issued.
4. He submits that the vendor of the 4th respondent sold plaint
schedule property Item No.1, to some extent, in favour of the 4th
respondent mentioning in the sale deed Sy.No.559/2B and
obtained building permission orders, amongst other survey
numbers also for Sy.No.559/2P incorrectly giving Sy.No.559/2P
whereas the same is part of Sy.No.559/2 (whole number) subject
matter of A.S.No.1 of 2001.
5. In the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court atleast at
this stage cannot determine that the building permissions
granted with respect to Sy.No.559/2P, form part of the plaint
schedule property in O.S.No.251 of 1994, pending at the stage of
the First Appeal A.S.No.1 of 2001, or not.. The same can be
considered by the respondents 2 and 3.
6. It is open for the petitioner to approach the respondents 2
and 3 who have granted building permit orders to apprise them of
the factual position as it is being raised here and seek for
appropriate orders for revocation/modification of the building
permit order under the statutory provisions, if the petitioner's
contentions are correct.
7. Consequently, without entering into the merits of the
disputed questions of fact, the writ petition is being disposed of
providing that the petitioner may approach the respondents 2 and
3 for redressal of the grievance as raised in this petition, upon
which the respondents 2/3, shall pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the
4th respondent as well.
8. The respondents shall ensure that the order passed in
A.S.No.1 of 2001 with respect to the subject matter of the appeal,
if in operation, is not violated by any of the parties.
No order as to costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the petition shall stand closed.
_________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
Date:12.05.2023
Gk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.13338 OF 2023
Date:12.05.2023
Gk
