Kota Ratna Pradeep Vs the State of Ap

KOTA RATNA PRADEEP, S/O LAGARAS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BANDULA DODDI CENTER, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA MALE, R/O 32-12-2/1, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA PRADESH.

¶10

KOTA RATNA RAJU, S/O ELISHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MALE, R/O 32-12-2/2, BANDULA DODDI, CENTER, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

KOTA SIKHAMANI, S/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, MALE, R/O 32-12-1, BANDULA DODDI CENTER, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

KOTA ESUDASU, S/O ESURATNAM, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, MALE, R/O 32-12-2/2, BANDULA DODDI CENTER, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, , REP. BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, BUCKINGHAMPETA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520002.

¶17

2

¶18

TOWN PLANNING SUPERVISOR, O/O VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA, BUCKINGHAMPETA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520002.

¶19

DEPUTY CITY PLANNER, O/O VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA, BUCKINGHAMPETA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520002.

¶20

PARASA DEVADAS KUMAR, S/O LATE GEORGE, MALE, R/O 3211/3-2D, BANDULA DODDI CENTER, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-520010.

¶21

PARASA ROSHAN PAUL, S/O DEVADAS KUMAR, MALE, R/O 32-113-2D, BANDULA DODDI CENTER, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-520010.

¶22

PARASA MARTAMMA, W/O LATE LAGARAS, FEMALE, R/O 32-11- 3- 2E, BANDULA DODDI CENTER, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-520010.

¶23

PARASA ANIL KUMAR, S/O DEVADANAM, MALE, R/O 32-11-3-2E, BANDULA DODDI CENTER, MOGALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-520010.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners representation dated 03.10.2020 and Grievance No.NTR20240412190 dated 15.04.2024 to the Respondent No.2 with regards to the encroachment, illegal and unauthorized construction at pathway used by public on the western side of our property situated at 32-12-2/1, Bandula Doddi enter, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh without following the rules envisaged under municipal laws as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and utter violative of provisions of relevant municipal laws by which construction of buildings in Municipalities in the state of Andhra Pradesh is governed and offends Art, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to remove the encroachment, illegal and unauthorized construction at pathway used by public on the western side of our property situated at 32-12-2/1, Bandula Doddi Center, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh and pass

¶26

3

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶28

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 stay the encroachment, illegal and unauthorized construction that is carried on by Respondent No.5 & 6 at pathway used by public on the western side of our property situated at 32-12-2/1, Bandula Doddi Center, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶29

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶30

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 grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition No. 15066 of 2024 to file affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶31

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶32

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 grant leave to the petitioners herein/Respondents No.5 to 8 in W.P. No. 15066 of 2024 to file counter affidavit on their behalf in the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and to pass

¶33

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶34

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 issue appropriate directions to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to enforce the interim order and ensure that no further construction is carried out by un-official respondents in contravention of the order dated 07.04.2025 pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶36

1.VENKATA MOHAN RAO PATHAKOTA

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶39

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶40

3.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC

¶41

4

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:-

¶44

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 in constructing in deviation of the sanctioned plan and also encroaching on the passage, thereby restricting the ingress and egress of the petitioners.

¶45

It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent authority was duly notified by the petitioners with regard to the unauthorized construction in the passage. The 2^nd respondent issued R.C.No.G6-119963/2023 dated 25.04.2024 and called upon the neighbors on either side of the joint passage to furnish their documents to decide on the right to joint passage. It is also submitted that the petitioners had complained about the encroachment and illegal construction in the passage and that the 2^nd respondent could not have issued such a vague reply for determining the right of joint passage.

¶46

This Court, vide order dated 31.07.2025, directed the unofficial respondents to maintain status quo insofar as the construction is concerned.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that the respondents had initially obtained permission for construction by submitting two applications on behalf of the father and son. Thereafter, they modified them into a single application and obtained fresh permission on 06.04.2025. It is submitted that the setbacks mentioned in the earlier permission dated 24.01.2024 and the permission dated 06.04.2025 are

¶48

5

¶49

completely different. It is submitted that in pursuance of the subsequent permission granted to the unofficial respondents, the construction is being carried on. It is also submitted that the writ petition is filed under the presumption that the respondents are constructing in terms of the permission dated 24.01.2024.

¶50

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 also submits that a detailed counter is filed and that the respondents have taken action for removing the structure in the pathway as well as the road-affected portion and also restored statutory setbacks. It is also stated that the action in pursuance of the confirmation order dated 14.08.2024 was taken against the unofficial respondents.

¶51

Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶52

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 8, this writ petition is disposed off, leaving it open for the petitioners to raise a fresh concern if there is any deviation or any construction in pursuance of the subsequent permission dated 06.04.2025. Needless to mention, the status quo order stands vacated.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶55

____________________

¶56

17.11.2025 PNS

¶57

6

Kota Ratna Pradeep v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

Kota Ratna Pradeep v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nukala Vijaya Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. M.A. Waheed, Engineers Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Mahaboob Basha Vs the State of Ap

G Jagadeesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Nagaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muslim Youth Association Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh