Allowed

Burugupalli Lakshmipathi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2023WP/12402/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two interlinked writ petitions concerning building plan sanctions. It held rejecting a building plan application solely due to the pendency of a related writ petition, absent a restraint order, is illegal. The rejection order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Gram Panchayat for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The rejection order dated 26.06.2023 is set aside; the Secretary is directed to adjudicate the building plan applications of both petitioners giving personal hearing.

Burugupalli Lakshmipathi Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 23711 AND 12402 OF 2023

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23711 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Achanta Geetha, W/o late Bhaskara Rao Aged about 52 years, Occ. House-wife R/o D.No.3-39, Peravaram Village Atreyapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R^{AmbedkarKonaseema} District Andhra Pradesh

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, A.P^Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522 238

¶12

The District Collector, EastGodavari District, at Rajamahendrava^ramAndhra Pradesh

¶13

The Panchayat Secretary Velivennu Gram Panchayat, Undrajavaram Mandal, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh,

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 prayed that this Writ of Mandamus, declaring^theaction of the 3 rd respondent in issuing two endorsements dated 26-06-2023, rejecting Petitioner applications for the proposed construction of R.C.C roof ground floor residential buildings in R S No. 204/1, near D.No. 1-124, at Munasabugari Street, Velivennu Village and Panchayat, Undrajavaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, on the ground that the said land is the subject matter of W.P No. 12402 of 2023, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequentially direct the 3rd respondent herein to approve his applications for proposed construction of R.C.C roof ground floor residential buildings in R S No. 204/1, near D.No. 1-124, at Munasabugari Street, Velivennu Village and Panchayat, Undrajavaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, by setting aside the impugned endorsement^{dated26-06-2023.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned endorsements dated 26-06-2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/s. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES^LLP Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI N SRIHARI, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GP

¶18

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO: 12402 OF 2023

¶20

Between:

¶21

" 1.. Burugupalli Lakshmipathi, S/o B.Appa Rao, age about 67 years, Occ. Cultivation and Business, R/o H.No. 1-124/4, Munasabugari Street, Vel’ivennu Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶22

1. Burugupalli Seetharamaiah, S/O B.Appa Rao, age about 62 years, Occ. Cultivation and Business, R/o H.No.1-124/4, Munasabugari Street, Velivennu Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶23

...PETITIONER(S) AND

¶24

The State of AP, , Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶25

The District Collector, (Panchayathraj), East Godavari^Districtat Rajamahendravaram.

¶26

The Tahsildar, Undrajavaram Mandal, Undrajavaram, East Godavari District 4. The Velivennu Gram Panchayath,, Rep. by its Secretary/Executive Officer, Velivennu, Undrajavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶27

Smt.Achanta Geetha, W/o late Bhaskara Rao, age about 52 years, Occ. House wife, R/o D.No.3-39, Peravaram Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the official respondents in initiating the appropriate action against the unofficial respondent for making construction without any sanction plan in her property admeasuring 506 sq. yards on eastern side of 15 cents or 726 sq. yards in RS.No.204/1, near to D.No.1-124, situated at Velivennu, Undrajavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the official respondents to take appropriate action against the unofficial respondent not to make any construction in her properly admeasuring 506 sq. yards on eastern side of 15 cents or 726 sq. yards in RS.No.204/1, near to D.No.1-124, situated at Velivennu, Undrajavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶31

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 official respondents to take appropriate action against the unofficial respondent not to make any construction in her property admeasuring 506 sq. yards on eastern side of 15 cents or 726 sq. yards in RS.No.204/1, near to D.No.1-124, situated at Velivennu, Undrajavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. K V L NARASIMHA RAO

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI D VENKATA NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI N SRIHARI, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GP Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶35

WRIT PETITION Nos.23711 & 12402 OF 2023

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

Since, both Writ Petitions are interlinked, they are being heard together and disposed of by the common order.

¶38

The short grievance of the petitioners in W.P. No.¹²⁴⁰² of 2023 is that, the petitioner in W.P. No.23711 of 2023 is proceeding with the construction without obtaining any building plan permission for construction of R.C.C roof ground floor residential buildings in R.S No.204/1, near D.No.1-124, at Munasabugari Street, Velivennu Village and Panchayat, Undrajavaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Similarly, the grievance of the petitioner in W.P. No.23711 of 2023 is that, their application for sanction of building plan was returned/rejected on the ground that W.P. No. 12402^of2023 is pending.

¶39

Heard Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.l 85 2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Department appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing^Counselfor Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent No.4.

¶40

¶41

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, the official respondents are not initiating proper action against the unofficial respondent who is the writ petitioner in other Writ Petition who is making construction without sanctioned building plan. As such, filed the present^WritPetition and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitionerⁱⁿ W.P. No.23711 of 2023, submitted that, the petitioner^hasnot made any constructions in the subject land and without there being any constructions, the Writ Petition seems to have been filed by the other writ petitioner, because he filed Writ Petition and the same is pending, in spite of making an application for approval of building plan, the Gram Panchayat has rejected^the building plan application on the ground that, the said Writ Petition is pending, In view of the same, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶43

On the other hand, Sri N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that, the Gram Panchayat ought not^have rejected the application on the ground of pendency^oftheother Writ Petition. However, the authorities will pass appropriate

¶44

¶45

orders on the petitioners application by taking into^{consideration} the orders passed by this Court.

¶46

Perused the record.

¶47

W.P. No. 12402 of 2023, has been filed as the respondentauthorities are not taking any action against the construction^so made by the 5^^^ respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.P.^No.23711 of 2023. The rejection order passed by the Gram Panchayat^onthe application made by the 4th respondent/writ petitioner^inW.P. No. 23711 of 2023, it has been stated that, the subject^landfor which the petitioner is asking for building plan, a^WritPetition vide W.P. No. 12402 of 2023 is pending before this Court. Accordingly, the said building plan application was rejected. Apart from that, no other reasons were stated by the Gram Panchayat. Mere pendency of the Writ Petition particularly^when there is no restraint order from this Court, the Gram Panchayat cannot reject the building plan of the petitioner and it should have dealt the said application in accordance with^law.

¶48

The rejection order is liable to be set aside and remitted back to the Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat^forfresh adjudication. In these circumstances, by taking into consideration the submissions made by both the learned^counsel for respective parties, instead of keeping the Writ Petitions

¶49

¶50

pending and inviting counter, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the Writ Petitions with the following direction:

¶51

i) The rejection order of the building plan dated 26.06.2023 is hereby set aside and remitted back to the concerned Gram Panchayat for fresh adjudication.

¶52

ii) The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat is directed to consider the petitioner’s building plan application in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to both the parties and to pass appropriate orders. If at all, the petitioner in W.P. No. 12402 of 2023, raise any objection for granting of building plan to the petitioner in W.P. No.23711, the concerned Gram Panchayat has to hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶53

Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No

¶54

costs.

¶55

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶56

Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR SECTidN OFFICER

¶57

//TRUE COPY// SECTidN OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522 238 2. The District Collector (Panchayatraj), Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Panchayat Secretary, Velivennu Gram Panchayat, Undrajavaram Mandal, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.

¶58

The Tahsildar, Undrajavaram Mandal, Undrajavaram, East Godavari District.

¶59

One CC to SRI. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Advocate fOPUCI 6. One CC to SRI. D VENKATA NARASIMHAM Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP for PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT! 9. One CC to SRI N SRIHARI, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GP [OPUCj 10. Three CD Copies Madhu gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/10/2023

COMMON ORDER

WP.No.23711 and 12402 of 2023 I Lf Cjo^\es iQ|l5l2-l+ DSL-

¶64

DISPOSING THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS

Burugupalli Lakshmipathi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burugupalli Lakshmipathi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chalamalasetty Lakshmi Parvathi Vs the State of Ap

Penchela Kasturi Vs Union of India

Boyapati Vara Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sandhyavalli Vinjamuri Vs Union of India

M/S Kanaka Durga Rice Mill, Vs the State of Ap

Kancharapu Aruna Kumari Vs the State of Ap