Disposed

M/S. Sbr Developers v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 May 2024WP/2484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court observed that a tentative layout plan issued to an unofficial respondent was withdrawn and replaced by a fresh plan. Allowed petitioners an opportunity to file objections to the new plan before the concerned authorities pass final orders.

What did the court decide?

Order passed allowing petitioners to file objections to the fresh plan submitted by the third respondent.

M/S. Sbr Developers Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

fi % \

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAI ■ V

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MAY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR "

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ' WRIT PETITION NO: 2484 OF 2023 ^

¶8

Between;

¶9

M/s. SBR Developers, Office at Singavaram Road, Nedudhavolu, East Godavari District. Rep by its Managing Partner, Satti Buchi Reddy, S/o Late Surreddy, Resident of House No. 8-175, Garuvu Street, Samisragudem Village, Nidudhavolu, East Godavari District-534301 .

¶10

Satti Buchi Reddy, S/o Late Surreddy, Age 65 years.^{ResidentofHouse} No. 8-175, Garuvu Street, Samisragudem Village, Nidudhavolu, East Godavari District-534301.

...PETITIONERS

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary,

¶15

Municipality and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶16

The Vice Chairman, Rajamahendravaram Urban Development Authority, Rajamahendravaram.

¶17

Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Real Estates, Rep by its partners^Officeat Singavaram Road, Nidudhavolu, East Godavari District-534301.

¶18

¶19

The Municipal Commissioner, Nidudhavolu Municipality,^Nidudhavolu.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 a Writ or direction, more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondent no.2, in issuing the Tentative Layout plan) vide File No.Pattern (residential lay-out

¶22

♦ V. k ^ ’ -.v

¶23

1;078/0605/LP/Nidadavole/2022, to the Respondent no 3, to the land an detent of 1.7064 Acers in S. No. 161/4A, 4B, 212/1 A, IB 7A, 7B of Singavaram Road, East Godavari District, by permitting access to their layout, by using the Petitioner's developed layout, which is arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 84 of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities, Act, 2016 and subsequently, direct the respondent no.2 to cancel the Tentative Layout Pattern File No. 1078 /0005/LP/Nidadhavole/2022, dt.11.01.2023 issued to the respondent no.3.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 not to issue the Final Layout plan to the respondent no.3; till pending disposal^{oftheaboveWrit} Petition.

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶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 may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 not to use my developed layout roads to access his Layout; till pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶28

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶29

Between:

¶30

The Vice Chairman, Rajamahendravaram Urban Development Authority Rajamahendravaram.

¶31

...VACATE STAY PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2

¶32

AND

¶33

M/s. SBR Developers, Office at Singavaram Road, Nedudhavolu, East Godavari District. Rep by its Managing Partner, Satti Buchi Reddy, S/o Late Surreddy, Resident of House No. 8-175, Garuvu Street, Samisragudem Village, Nidudhavolu, East Godavari District-534301 .

¶34

Satti Buchi Reddy, S/o Late Surreddy, Age 65 years.^{ResidentofHouse} No. 8-175, Garuvu Street, Samisragudem Village, Nidudhavolu, East Godavari District-534301.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶36

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipality and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶37

Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Real Estates, Rep by its Partners i) Sri Vedullapalli Sri Rama Krishna Amaranath, S/o. Narasimha Rao, ii)^SriMokkarala Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, iii) Sri Atlam Gangadhar,^S/o. Kanakayya, iv) Sri Tanguturi Prasad, S/o. Brahmayya, v) Sri

¶38

Pachipulusu Srinivas, S/o. Veerabhadra Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Office At Singavaram Road, Nidudhavolu, East Godavari District.

¶39

The Municipal Commissioner, Nidudhavolu Municipality,^Nidudhavolu.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

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 vacate the interim order dated 02-02-2023 passed in lA No. 1 and 2 of 2023 in WP No. 2484 of 2023 in the interest of justice and dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. B.V. KRISHNA REDDY

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN & URBAN

¶44

DEVELOPMENT

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KOMMASANI SRINIVASULA REDDY, SC FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY,^SCFOR

¶47

MUNICIPAL & MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

APHC010047432023

¶50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶51

[3332]

¶52

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶53

FRIDAY .THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶56

WRIT PETITION NO: 2484/2023

¶57

Between:

¶58

M/s. Sbr Developers and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

¶59

AND

¶60

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶61

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶62

1.BV KRISHNA REDDY

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶64

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶65

2.KOMMASANI SRINIVASULA REDDY SC FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES

¶66

3.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

¶67

4.M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP )

¶68

The Court made the following:

¶69

¶70

ORDER:

¶71

Questioning the tentative layout pattern (residential layout plan) issued in favour of the un-official respondent, this Writ^{Petitionisfiled.}

¶72

When the matter is taken up for consideration today,^{learnedcounsel} for the un-official respondent submitted that the tentative plan which was

¶73

questioned in the Writ Petition has been withdrawn by the un-official respondent and they made a fresh plan before the authorities^concerned.As such, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶74

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be given an opportunity to raise objections^{forthefreshplan} submitted by the unofficial respondent.

¶75

Recording their submissions, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing the following order;

¶76

The petitioners are at liberty to file objections to^the fresh plan submitted by the 3'^'^ respondent before 2 nd respondent. On such objections, the authorities concerned shall pass orders. If no objections are filed in time, the authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶77

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ

¶79

Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶80

//TRUE COPY//

¶81

Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶82

SECTION OFFICER

¶83

To,

¶84

The Principal Secretary, Municipality & Urban Development,^Stateof Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶85

The Vice Chairman, Rajamahendravaram Urban Development Authority, Rajamahendravaram.

¶86

Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Real Estates, Rep by its partners Office at Singavaram Road, Nidudhavolu, East Godavari District-534301.

¶87

The Municipal Commissioner, Nidudhavolu Municipality, Nidudhavolu.

¶88

One CC to Sri. B.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶89

Two CCS to GP for Municipal Admn & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶90

One CC to Sri Kommasani Srinivasula Reddy, SC for Urban Development Authorities. [OPUC]

¶91

One CC to Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate [OPUC]

¶92

One CC to Sri M. Manohar Reddy, SC for Municipal & Municipal Corporations. [OPUC]

¶93

Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT t

DATED:03/05/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2484 of 2023

c;;
2 6 JUN 202^
Can'eiU tieniion
".J
s.a>PAT •W

¶101

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

M/S. Sbr Developers v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sbr Developers 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

M/s Garrison Constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malepati Radharam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ghantasala Dana Kumari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Sobha Rani Vs the State of Ap

D. Nagamani Vs . The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Seshapu Purna Prabhakara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh