Disposed

U.Kumari v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2024WP/21400/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice directing petitioners to stop construction. The court directed the municipality to inspect the plot for deviations. The impugned notice was not to be given effect to, leaving action open to authorities if violations are found during inspection, pending dismissal of related miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Notice to inspect construction issued. Impugned notice not to be acted upon. Pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed. No costs.

U.Kumari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 21400 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

U.Kumari, W/o. Tata Rao, Aged 35 years, Occ: Housewife,^R/o.55-135 Opp: Kanishka Residency, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam.

¶10

U.Nagaratnam, W/o. Venkataramana, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 35-135, Opp: Kanishka Residency, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep: by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District.

¶16

Narsipatnam Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Narsipatnam Visakhapatnam.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶19

be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th ^respondent in issuing the notice vide RO.No.482/2013/G1, dated: 0f:O4.;2O13 directing the petitioners to stop the construction^{onPlot.No.3in} ,1;29-2 situated at Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority and contrary to their own sanction plan vide proceedings No.BA.No.46/11-12, 117/11, dated: 04.07.2011^{andviolativeof} principles' of natural justice and consequently suspend the impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent vide RO.No.482/2013/G1,^{dated:04.04.2013.}

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 8032 OF 2014)

¶21

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 direct the 4th respondent forthwith to remove the locks applied by him on the premises Plot no.3 in Sy.No. 129-2 situated at Narsipatnam, Visakhpatnam District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 28303 OF 2013)

¶23

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 4th respondent forthwith to remove the locks applied by him on the premises Plot No.3 in Sy.No.129-2 situated at Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 16131 OF 2016)

¶25

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 close the W.P.M.P. No. 28303 of 2013 by recording the admission of the factum of non-seizure of the premises^{situatedinPlotNo.3} in Survey No. 129/2 of Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam.

¶26

% LA- NO: 1 OF 2013rWPMP. Mn- 9fiiQo r^f 2013)

¶27

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 suspend the impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent vide RO.No.482 /2013/GI, dated: 04.04.2013 by directing him not to interfere with the construction carried on Plot.No.3 in Sy. No. 129-2 situated at Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.GAYATHRI

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. MANOHAR

¶31

REDDY (SC FOR

¶32

MUNCIPALITY)

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.21400 of 2013

¶37

U. Kumari, W/o Tata Rao, aged 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o 35-135, Opp: Kanishka Residency, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam and another

¶38

... Petitioners

¶39

Versus

¶40

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

¶41

Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for respondents

¶42

: Smt. D. Gayathri : GP for Revenue and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, standing counsel

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Assailing notice vide R.O.NO.482/2013/G1, dated 04.04.2013 issued by respondent No.4 directing the petitioners to stop construction in plot No. 3, survey No. 129-2, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, the above writ^petitionis filed.

¶45

The case of the petitioners is that subsequent to purchase of the plot admeasuring 610 square yards in survey^No.129,

¶46

Page 2 of 4

¶47

, SRS, J W.P.No.21400 of 2013

¶48

Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, obtained petitioners permission from Panchayat Secretary Gram of Narsipatnam Panchayat vide proceedings B.A.No.46/1 D12, 117/11 bated 04.07.201 i- Subse quently, Narsipatnam Gram was upgraded as Municipality. When Panchayat the petitioners with proceeded construction, respondent No.4 issuedi the notice i ^ence, the impugned. writ petition.

¶49

Smt. Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel representing HareshD.Kumar,Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. learned counsel representing Sri M. Reddy, learned Manohar standing counsel for respondent No.4.

¶50

beamed counsel for the petitioners constructions are being made mi accordancesubmits that the sanctioned i with the plan in favour of the petitioners and there deviations. are no

¶51

beamed counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the authoritie s will initiate proceedings in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities ^ct, 1965^ if construction is made in deviati on of sanction plan.

¶52

Page 3 of 4

¶53

SRSJ W.P.No.21400 of 2013

¶54

•i

¶55

The notice impugned does not indicate any violations except disclosing about pendency of the writ petitions^beforethe High Court. There is no dispute regarding the plan^sanctioned by the then Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioners, for construction of ground plus two.

¶56

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to inspect the construction said to have been made in the subject plot by issuing notice to the petitioners. In case any deviations are found, it is open to the authorities to initiate action in accordance with law. The notice impugned, shall not be given effect to. No costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall stand dismissed.

¶58

To,

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT^EGISTRAR /-SECTION OFFICER

¶61

¶62

Government

¶63

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶64

% 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District.

¶65

The Commissioner, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam. Narsipatnam Municipality.

¶66

One CC to SRI D.GAYATHRI Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

One CC to SRI B D MAHESWARA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

One CC to SRI 2008/GP FOR REVENUE Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

One CC to SRI 6398A/ENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

TWO C.D COPIES

MBT

r \

HIGH COURT

DATED: 14/02/2024

O
o
fe 0 2 AUG 202^
Current Section 'fe-<
-O

ORDER

WP.No.21400of2013

DISPOSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS

U.Kumari v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Kumari v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

S. Bhagyavathi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kovvuri Pundarikaksha Reddy,Vsp Vs State of Ap,Rep.by Prl.Scy,Mun Adm,Hyd,and Another

Smt.Chinna Ramakka Vs the State of Ap

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Alla Rajani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ashoknagar Citizens Association, Kurnool, Vs The Govt.of A.P.