Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶5

The petitioner states that she has been in possession of the land covered by Sy.No.69/6 which is in an extent of 26.66 Sq. yards in Vizianagaram Town for the last 25 years. She and her husband have also constructed an asbestos shed in the said land about 20 years back and have been residing in it and paying property tax to the Corporation regularly and Door number 8-24-37/117 was also allotted to the said shed. Electricity service connection was also sanctioned in the year 2000.

¶6

While so, as the Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme for regularization of unobjectionable encroachments in Government lands by way of dwelling units for both the people, who are below the poverty line and above the poverty line, in the entire State up to 500 Sq. yards as per G.O.Ms.No.388 dated 24-08-2017, the petitioner made an application through Mee-seva for regularization of the dwelling house constructed by her in the above land. It is stated that, as per G.O.Ms.No.388, the Sub-Divisional Level approval

¶7

¶8

committee has regularized the said encroachments on 27.10.2018. Based on the said approval, the 4^th respondent accepted the application of the petitioner for regularization on 06-11-2018 and directed the 5^th respondent to issue assignment order in favour of the petitioner for the said land. Accordingly, the 5^th respondent issued house site patta bearing Rc.No.5/2019 and bearing house site patta No.35/2019 to the petitioner herein.

¶9

Thereafter, it is stated, that the petitioner has removed the asbestos shed and approached the 3^rd respondent with a request for grant of permission for construction of a house in the said site of 26.66 Sq. yards and at that time, she was orally informed by the staff of the 3^rd respondent that there is no necessity to obtain building permission to construct her house in 26.66 Sq. yards, as it is less than 100 Sq. yards as per G.O.Ms.No.426. Therefore, the petitioner started construction of the house.

¶10

Not it is stated that as she recently contested the election of Corporator from the 32^nd division from the TDP party and got defeated, the elected Corporator of the said 32^nd division, bore grudge against her and influenced the 3^rd respondent to stop the construction. Therefore, they are now making efforts to interfere with the construction of the house by the petitioner. So, the petitioner sought declaration that the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the construction of the house by the petitioner without issuing any notice, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently sought direction to them not to interfere with the construction of the house.

¶11

¶12

The fact that the petitioner has been in possession of the said house site, is not disputed. Similarly, the fact that regularization of encroachment was also made as alleged by the petitioner in the petition, is not controverted before this Court. The only controversy involved in this writ petition is whether the prior sanction by the Corporation is required for construction of a house in an extent of 26.66 Sq. yards or not. According to the petitioner, as per the G.O.Ms.No.426, no sanction is required from the Corporation for construction of a house in a site which is less than 100 Sq. yards of extent.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation would submit that the said G.O.Ms.No.426 has been superseded and it is no more in force. According to him, as per G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 07-04-2012 and also G.O.Ms.No.119, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 28-03-2017, now sanction is required for construction of a house even in a site which is less than 50 Sq. yards also. So, according to the latest G.Os., irrespective of the extent of the land, sanction for construction of the house is required by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, even though the petitioner has been constructing the house in a house site that was allotted to her under the house site patta, in an extent of 26.66 Sq. yards, sanction is required to construct the said house.

¶14

The petitioner now contends that the petitioner has submitted an application to accord sanction to construct the house and the same has not been considered. Learned

¶15

¶16

Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that physical filing of such application has been dispensed with long back in the year 2003 and only online applications will be entertained.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that online application has also been submitted and the present Corporator is preventing the officials of the Municipal Corporation to consider the same.

¶18

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit fresh online application within a week from the date of this order and the officials of the respondent-Municipal Corporation are directed to consider the said online application and dispose of the same according to law within three (03) weeks from the date of submitting the said online application. Till then, the officials of the respondent-Municipal Corporation shall not interfere with the construction made by the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed not to proceed with the further construction till his application for sanction has been disposed of by the officials of the respondent-Municipal Corporation as directed supra. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶21

Date : 09-04-2021 ARR

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.7944 OF 2021

¶25

Date : 09-04-2021

¶26

ARR

Gondela Durga Prasanna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gondela Durga Prasanna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Putta Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Ashok Kumar Reddy Vs the District Collector

Smt. S.Sarada, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Anakapalle Papavathi at Agasti Papavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ganta Sundara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppineedi Rambabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh