Disposed

Chilukuri Kota Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jan 2023WP/3440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging inaction regarding illegal construction. Liberty was granted for the builder to apply for regularization, with a direction to the authorities to decide within four weeks, subject to a prohibition on further construction.

What did the court decide?

liberty granted to apply for regularization; right to further construction stayed until application decided.

Chilukuri Kota Satyanarayana Vs The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3440 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the inaction of the 4^th and 5^th respondents to stop illegal construction being made by the 6^th respondent without obtaining the panchayat plan approval and without leaving set backs on Southern and Western sides of the construction being made by the 6^th respondent.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents.

¶6

Initially, at the time of hearing on 14.6.2022 learned counsel for 5^th respondent submitted that a show cause notice has been issued to 6^th respondent and 6^th respondent was also directed not to undertake any further construction and further construction has now been stopped at the stage of basement.

¶7

Notice served on 6^th respondent and 6^th respondent has filed counter in which he submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 08.12.2016, the respondents more particularly 4^th and 5^th respondents had power to regularize the constructions which were

¶8

¶9

made without having any permission. Accordingly, when he has

¶10

tried to submit the application, the respondents have not entertained the said application only on the ground of pendency of present writ petition. He has further averred that the construction of building has been stopped as directed by this Court.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by both sides, the 6^th respondent is given liberty to make an application along with requisite fee to the 4^th and 5^th respondents. On receipt of the said application with requisite fee from the 6^th respondent, the 4^th and 5^th respondents may consider the same as per rules and take appropriate action within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the 6^th respondent. Till such time the 6^th respondent is directed not to proceed with any further construction.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

¶14

also stand closed.

¶15

________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶16

Date: 04.01.2023 RD

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.3440 of 2022

¶20

Dated 04.01.2023

¶21

Chilukuri Kota Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilukuri Kota Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Lakshminarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

yerukonda Ramu at Ramudu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lanka Ramasiva Reddy Vs Y.Sri Lakshmi,I.a.S

K Jaya Rami Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Chellinki Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanku Siva Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh