HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI…
Leave open online building-permission application; respondent to consider it; no coercive steps till then; petitioner not to construct till permission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\ \ ,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 7599 OF 2019
Between:
Alla Rajani, W/o Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 57 years, R/o Veera Reddy Palle Village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondentNo.2nottointerferewith the construction/ possession of the petitioner's property admeasuring Ac.0.04.882 cents (236.28 sq.yards) in S.No.412/ 1, Noonepally within Nandyal Municipal Limits, declaring its action as illegal andviolativeofArticle14and300- A of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of Doctrine of principles of natural justice
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner's property admeasuring Ac.0.04.882 cents (236.28 sq.yards) in S.No.412/1, Noonepally, Nandyal Municipality pending W.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.S.R. ANJANEYULU SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBANDEV
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.SAI KIRAN FOR
SRI N.RANGA REDDY, SC for MUNICIPALITIES
The Court made the following order:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.7599 of 2019
Alla Rajani, W/o Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 57 years, R/o Veera Reddy Palle Village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, M.A. 86 U.D. Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and another.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Satyanaryana Prasad Counsel for respondents : CP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, standing counsel
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to declare action of respondent No.2 in interfering with construction work / possessionofthe petitioner over land of an extent of Ac.0.04.882 cents (236.28 square yards) in S.No.412/1, Noonepally within Nandyal
Municipal Limits, as illegal and arbitrary.
- Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondentNo.2. It was contended, inter alia, that building permission process has
Page 2 of 5
SRS, J W.P.No.7599 of 2019
been made online from the year, 2016 onwards. Petitionerhasto make an application through licensed technical person authorized by respondent No.2 and pay requisite fee and charges through online only. The averment made by the petitioner with regard to payment of Rs.2,15,000/- is specifically denied.
- Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V. Satyanaryana Prasad, learned counselforthe petitioner and Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned counsel representingSri N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
- Learned Senior Counsel would submit that petitioner being the owner of the subject property, having purchasedthe same under registered sale deed dated 14.12.2010 submitted application for construction of ground plus two, residential building. He- submits that respondent No.2, havingentertained the application informed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,15,000/towards development and other miscellaneous charges. He submits that when petitioner dumped materialand started construction of compound wall, the officials of
N
Page 3 of 5
SRS, J W.P.No.7599of2019
\ \
respondent No.2, without issuing any notice, came to the property and removed building material. 5. Whereas, according to learned counsel for respondent No.2, no permission was granted to the petitioner. Building permission process has been made online since 2016andone has to make application through licensed technical person and pay requisite fee, through online.
- In view of the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of without going into other aspects ofthematter. leaving it open to the petitioner to make online application through licensed technical person to respondent No.2 by annexing all the documents. If such application is filed,
\
Page 4 of 5
SRSJ W.P.No.7599 of 2019
respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.
Till the above exercise is completed, the respondent authority shall not take any coercive steps. The petitionershall not proceed with construction till permission is accorded. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shall stand dismissed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- S.SRINIVAS PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED: 14/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.7599 of 2019
ICO 0 7 MAR 202A
Ccri
.‘S' Current Section
^'SPATCV^PrS
DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Municipality can interfere with the petitioner's construction/possession absent a granted building permission.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Alla Rajani
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, M.A and U.D Department
Nandyal Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Nandyal
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
