Jayanthi Chowdary Tatineni Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1272 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Jayanthi Chowdary Tatineni, D/o. Tatineni Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 28 Years, R/o. D.No. 74-8-9/1, H.No. 22, JD Nagar, Near Water Tank, Vijayawada Urban, N.T.R. District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Urban Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Zonal Commissioner, Gajuwaka Zone, Zonal Office -6, 26-1-20, 100 feet Road, 0pp. Municipal Office, Chinagantyada, Sri Nagar, Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

The Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Resented by its employee, Sri. Kommuri Pothuraju, S/o. Kommuri Appa Rao, Gajuwaka Zone, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

Sri. Javvadi Ramana, S/o. Sanyasi, Age. Not known,^R/o. Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

Sri. Alluri Srinivasulu, S/o. Alluri Venkayya, Age. Not known, R/o. Q.No. 333/d, Sector-8, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶15

Smt. Alluri Radhika, W/o. Alluri Srinivasulu, Age. Not known, R/o. Q.No. 333/d, Sector -8, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

f

¶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 be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the ^gjs%ce of Vyrit of MANDAMUS declaring the action of^{theRespondentsmore} ^^a^gflarly I Kommuri Pothuraju, Employee of the 4*^ Respondent - l^unicipality in threatening the Petitioner without filing any applications with rS«pe€fto LRS scheme for construction of the individual residential building and preventing the approval of the LRS with the help of the higher officials in respect of land admeasuring 150 Sq.yards in Sy. No. 274/5, 277, Plot No. 'E' North Side as per Sri Balajinagar Layout Plan, situated at Desapathrunipalem Village, Greater Visakha Limits, Parwada Mandal, Visakhapatnam which was purchased from my lawful vendors vide Registered Sale Deed No. 9595/2022 dated 29-12-2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper and violative of articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property purchased through Registered Sale Deed No. 9595/2022 dated 29-12-2022 without following due process of law as contemplated under the Act.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶22

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 Respondents to regularize the lands in respect of the property belongs to the Petitioner purchased through Registered Sale Deed No. 9595/2022 dated 29-12-2022 under the provisions of Andhra

¶23

Pradesh Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots^{Rules,2020while} collecting the requisite fee for regularization in^{theinterestofjustice.}

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRi V. Y. PRABHUVU

¶25

Sv

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL^ADMNAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI A.S.C. BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : NONE APPEARED

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

i

¶31

APHC010025432025

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶33

[3333]

¶34

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY

¶36

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 1272/2025

¶40

Between:

¶41

Jayanthi Chowdary Tatineni

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

AND

¶44

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶45

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶47

1.VYPRABHUVU

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶49

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP

¶50

The Court made the following:

¶51

2

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶54

seeking the following relief;

¶55

to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferabiy^awrit in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly Kommuri Pothuraju Employee^ofthe 4"’ Respondent - Municipality In threatening the Petitioner^without filing any applications with respect to LRS scheme^andBRSscheme for construction of the individual residential building and preventing the approval of the LRS and Building Permissions with the help of the higher officials in respect of land admeasuring 150 Sq.yards in Sy.No.274/5, 217, Plot No ‘E’ South Side as per Sri Balajinagar Layout Plan, situated at Desapathrunipalem Village,^{GreaterVIsakha} Limits, Parwada Mandal, Visakhapatnam which w/as purchased^from my lawful vendors vide Registered Sale Deed No. 9595/2022^dated 29.12.2022 as Illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper^{andviolativeof} articles 14,19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India ”

¶56

The case of the petitioner is that, he is the absolute^owner and possessor of land admeasuring 150 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.274/5,^277, in Plot No.’E’ South Side as per Sri Balajinagar Layout plan situated at Desapthrunipalem village, Parawada Mandal, GVMC, having purchased the same from one Maganti Ramachandra Prasad under registered^saledeed bearing document No.9595/2022, dated 29.12.2022.

¶57

b) It is the further case of the petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner’s vendors through their GPA holders Karri^Ramunaiduand Pilla Narsinga Rao got executed the registered sale deeds^{infavour ofpetitioner’s} vendor for the purpose of development of land admeasuring^{Ac.0-08centsin} Sy.No.274/5 and Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.277.

¶58

c) While so, some unknown persons namely Pilla Sanyasi^Rao,Pilla Satya Rao, Pilla Ramana, Pilla Narasinga Rao and Pilla^{VenktaRamanahave}

¶59

3

¶60

fradulently executed two documents claiming the property^{asancestralvide} document No.3361 of 2010 and 1326/2018 registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office, Lankelapalem. Taking advantage of the said illegal and fraudulent transactions, those persons are claiming title, ownership over the property of the petitioner, for which, they filed O.S.Nos.82/2023,^{89/2023and90/2023} before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, which are still pending.

¶61

d) While so, petitioner’s vendor filed an application^underRTIAct before the Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram on 01.09.2022 seeking certain information. Pursuant to which, the sub Registrar vide RTI No.23/2022, dated 23.09.2022, furnished information stating that as per the records of SRO, a General Power of Attorney has been registered vide^{documentNo.41/1987} dated 24.04.1987 and a sale deed bearing document No.1486/1987^wasalso refering to a link document of said GPA No.41/1987,^wherein it was mentioned that Pilla Mahalakshmi, S/o Pilla Appala Swamy and^{hisminorchildrenhave} executed GPA in favour of Karri Ramanayudu and Pilla Narsinga Rao Sureddy Babu Vidya Sagar in respect of land an extent^{ofAc.0-04centsin} Sy.No.275/5 and Ac.0-08 cents in Sy.No.277 situated at Desapatrunipalem Village, Visakhapatnam District.

¶62

e) While so, Tatineni Srinivasa Rao who is one of the purchaser of other plots, made a representation to the District Collector, Anakapalle complaining about the false and fabricated documents alleged to have been created by the unofficial respondents and thereby encroaching into the subject

¶63

4

¶64

i

¶65

land. Pursuant to the said representation, the Special^{DeputyCollector,APIIC,} Visakhapatnam appointed District Revenue Officer, Anakapalli vide orders dated 29.03.2023 for conducting an inspection and to submit the report. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Collector has also addressed^a letter to the Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal on 04.04.2023 directing him to appear on 11.04.2023 for conducting enquiry in respect of the^land in question. The Special Deputy Collector in the presence of Tahsildar^{andMandalRevenue} Inspector, Parawada conducted survey with Village FMB^{inrespectoflandin} Sy.No.274/5 admeasuring Ac.0-04 cents and in Sy.No.277^{admeasuringAc.O-} 08 cents, recorded the names of the unofficial respondents. However, on verification of the documents and original sale deeds submitted by the complainant i.e., Tatineni Srinivasa Rao, it was observed^{thattheunofficial} respondents got double registrations in respect of^{thesubjectmatterlandand} it was confirmed that on thorough verification and examination of the records, the complainant and the petitioner have already purchased^{theirrespective} plots, and hence, pattadar passbooks issued in favour of unofficial respondents have to be cancelled. f) The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal submitted a report vide Rc.No.328/2023/AA, dated 29.09.2023 stating that since^{doubletransactions} took place in favour of Pilla Mahalakshmi and Pilla Venkata Ramana, recommended for cancellation of their pattadar passbooksⁱⁿ Sy.No.274/5^for an extent of Ac.0-04 cents and Sy.No.277 for an extent^{ofAc.0-08cents.As} the respondent authorities did not take any action^{ontherepresentationmade}

¶66

by the complainant requesting to cancel the pass books of Pilla Mahalakshmi and Pilla Venkata Ramana., the present writ petition^isfiled. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel furnished a copy of instructions, wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s land falls in Sy.No.274/5, 277, Plot No.E South Side as per Sri Balajinagar Layout plan of Desapatrunipalem Village, Parawada Mandal. Further, it is to note that the staff of the respondents’ office neither interfered with the possession of the petitioner’s site nor obstructed any construction activities thereon. However, the petitioner submitted a fresh application regarding regularization of his site under the LRS Scheme, which is a scheme for the regularization of unapproved layouts and plots issued by MA&UD, as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 08.01.2020, wherein it is stated that as the petitioner’s application was submitted beyond 90 days from the date of notification, the rules do not permit the submission of new application at this time, as such, the petitioner was advised to await forthcoming scheme or alternatively, pay 14% open space charges while submitting a building application in the online portal. 5. As per the above instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, it is clear that the staff of the respondent authorities neither interfered with the possession of the petitioner’s ^ite nor obstructed any

¶67

6

¶68

f

¶69

construction activities thereon and also that as of today, the scheme for regularization is not existing.

¶70

In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition,^{thisCourtfeels} it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit an application for regularization of the unapproved layouts and plots in pursuance of subsequent^{schemeintroduced} by the Government, if any.

¶71

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶72

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ^{Petitionshallstand}

¶73

closed.

¶74

//TRUE COPY//

¶75

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGI^AR

¶76

SECTION OFFICER

¶77

To,

¶78

The Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Urban Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶79

The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶80

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Gajuwaka Zone, Zonal Office -6, 26-1-20,^100feetRoad 0pp. Municipal Office, Chinagantyada, Sri Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶81