Busayyagari Venkata Subba Reddy Vs the State of Ap

BUSAYYAGARI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, BUSAYYAGARI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O B.PAPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62YRS, OCC FARMER, R/O PLOT NO. 16, UMA MAHESHWARI NAGAR, SOODIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL DISTRICT, ALSO R/O 19-129-10-2, BUDAGA JANGALA COLONY, BANAGANAPALLE, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

...PETITIONER

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶18

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH RAJ OFFICER, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL, A.P.

¶19

THE BANAGANEPALLE GRAM PANCHYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL, AP.

¶20

THE KURNOOL URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUDA, CRC BUILDING, CHANIKYAPURI COLONY, A CAMP, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 toPleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularly one in

¶23

2

¶24

HN, J

¶25

W.P.Nos.4536_2025 and 19359_2024

¶26

the nature of Writ of Mandamus, challenging action of the Respondent No.3 in Cancelling the Construction Permission of the Writ Petitioner, vide Resolution No. 181, dated 10-09-2024 and also challenging the Endorsement issued by the Respondent No.4 ordering the Petitioner to obtain the Fresh Construction Permission, vide Endorsement No.03/Planning/KUDA/20 25, dated 22-01-2025 with regarding to the Function Hall Property i.e. New B.V.Subba Reddy Function Hall admeasuring Ac.03-08 cents in Sy.No.65, building constructed in Ac. 00-10 cents with G 2, situated at Telugupeta, Papireddynagar, Banumukkala Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh - 518 124, which is illegal, arbitrary and also violation of 121 of the A.P. Panchayathraj Act, 1994 and also unconstitutional under Article 21 300-A of the Constitution of India and also against the order passed by this Honble Court, vide WP.No. 19359/2024, Order dated 04-092024 and consequently, set aside the Orders passed

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 PLEASEDTo suspend the operation of the Resolution passed by the 3RD Respondent, vide No. 181, dated 10-09-2024 and further Endorsement issued by the 4th Respondent, vide Endorsement No.03/Planning/KUDA/2025, dated 22-01- 2025with regarding the Petitioners Function Hall i.e. New B.V.Subba Reddy Function Hall admeasuring Ac.0308 cents in Sy.No.65, building constructed in Ac. 00-10 cents with G-i-2, situated at Telugupeta, Papireddynagar, Banumukkala Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh - 518 124 and pass

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.SUBRAMANYAM DARABOINA

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.SHANTI PRASAD SINGALURI SC For UDA CHITTOOR,KADAPA,KURNOOL,ANP,PUTTAPARTHI

¶33

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶34

3.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats

¶35

3

¶36

HN, J W.P.Nos.4536_2025 and 19359_2024

¶37

APHC010383872024

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶39

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶40

[3457]

¶41

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO: 19359/2024

¶45

Between:

¶46

BUSAYYAGARI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O- B.PAPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62YRS, OCC- FARMER, R/O- PLOT NO.16, UMA MAHESHWARI NAGAR, SOODIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL AND DISTRICT, ALSO R/O19-129-10-2, BUDAGAJANGALA COLONY, BANAGANAPALLE, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶47

...PETITIONER

¶48

AND

¶49

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶50

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYALA DISTRICT, NANDYALA.

¶51

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYALA DISTRICT.

¶52

THE TAHSILDAR, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶53

THE KURNOOL URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUDA, CRC BUILDING, CHANIKYAPURI COLONY, A CAMP, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN.

¶54

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶55

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

¶56

4

¶57

HN, J

¶58

W.P.Nos.4536_2025 and 19359_2024 pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, restraining the action of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 in trying to dispossesses the petitioner from his Function Hall Property i.e. New B.V.Subba Reddy Function Hall, admeasuring Ac.03-08 cents in Sy.No.65, building constructed in Ac.OOlOcents with G-2, situated at Telugupeta, Papireddynagar, Banumukkala Village, BanaganapalleMandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh - 518 124, and trying to demolish the compound wall, which is illegal, arbitrary and also against the Principal of Natural Justice and also Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to dispossess and disturb the peaceful possessionand enjoyment of the Petitioner from his function hall property, and pass

¶59

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶60

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 pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities not to dispossesses the petitioner by demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner's Function Hall Property i.e. "New B.V.Subba Reddy Function Hall", admeasuring Ac.03-08 cents in Sy.No.65, building constructed in Ac.OO- lOcents with G+2, situated at Telugupeta, Papireddynagar, Banumukkala Village, BanaganapalleMandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh - 518 124, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass

¶61

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶62

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 pleased to vacate the interim order passed in lA No. 1 of 2024 in WP NO. 19359/2024 and dismiss the petition, as it has no merits and pass

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶64

1.SUBRAMANYAM DARABOINA

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶66

1.SHANTI PRASAD SINGALURI SC For UDA CHITTOOR,KADAPA,KURNOOL,ANP,PUTTAPARTHI

¶67

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶68

5

¶69

HN, J

¶70

W.P.Nos.4536_2025 and 19359_2024

¶71

COMMON ORDER:

¶72

The petitioner in W.P.No.19359 of 2024 filed the writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in attempting to demolish the compound wall. It is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the compound wall was demolished by the respondents.

¶73

The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5 disputes the demolition, stating that no demolition was undertaken by respondent No.5. Be that as it may, considering that the wall has been demolished, nothing further survives in the writ petition, accordingly deserves to be closed.

¶74

W.P.No.4536 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 10.09.2024, whereby the 3^rd respondent passed a resolution bearing No.181 concerning the construction activity of as many as 29 different individuals, holding that they were constructing without any setbacks. Accordingly, the resolution was passed to cancel the permissions granted by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner had obtained permission for construction in March 2024. The 3^rd respondent passed the resolution on 10.09.2024, duly cancelling the permission granted in favor of the petitioner. Basing on the said resolution, the 4^th respondent has called upon the petitioner to file a fresh application for the grant of permission.

¶75

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent cannot unilaterally cancel the permission without issuing a show-cause notice or calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The 4^th respondent also could not have acted solely on the resolution of 3^rd respondent by issued proceedings calling upon the petitioner to apply afresh.

¶76

6

¶77

HN, J

¶78

W.P.Nos.4536_2025 and 19359_2024

¶79

1. The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter stating that permission beyond

¶80

an extent of 300 square meters could not have been issued by the 3^rd respondent, and that the petitioner must apply afresh to the 4^th respondent in the event the petitioner intends to construct further.

¶81

Heard and perused the record.

¶82

Considering the submissions, it is not in dispute that the impugned proceedings dated 10.09.2024 were passed without issuing any notice or calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. The 3^rd respondent unilaterally resolved to cancel the permission, which procedure could not have been adopted by the 3^rd respondent. The procedure adopted by the 3^rd respondent is also alien to law and deserves to be set aside. The impugned proceedings dated 10.09.2024 and 22.01.2025 are hereby set aside.

¶83