Disposed¶40

Padmasree Real Estates and Constructions, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2025WP/7213/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Release of mortgaged layout plots by VMDA/VUDA; LP No.80/2007, Sy.Nos.43/P, 44/P, 48/P, Jonnada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District; NALA Act 2006 (Act No.3 of 2006) repealed by ordinance dated 03.09.2025; direction to consider case under Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.5 of 2005 and release mortgaged plots; Article 226 mandamus; promissory estoppel; earlier WP.No.13676 of 2014 on NALA conversion charges; writ petition disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's case in terms of Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.5 of 2005 (Act No.3 of 2006) and release the mortgaged plots; writ petition disposed of with no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶40

Padmasree Real Estates and Constructions, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.4 in not releasing the mortgaged plots (total 22: Plot Nos.1 to 18 and 94 to 97 of LP No.80/2007, Sy.Nos.43/P, 44/P, 48/P, Jonnada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District) is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, warranting mandamus for their release. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions and the ordinance placed before the Court, the Court directed respondent No.4 to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.5 of 2005 (Act No.3 of 2006) and to release the mortgaged plots of the petitioner.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.7213 of 2025 (Harinath.N, J.; decided 21.11.2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati): Padmasree Real Estates and Constructions sought a writ of mandamus declaring respondent No.4's (Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority) non-release of 22 mortgaged plots (Plot Nos.1 to 18 and 94 to 97 of LP No.80/2007, Sy.Nos.43/P, 44/P and 48/P, Jonnada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District) illegal and arbitrary, invoking Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A and promissory estoppel; an earlier round (WP.No.13676 of 2014) had concerned the demand for NALA conversion charges. After the State issued an ordinance dated 03.09.2025 repealing the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (Act No.3 of 2006), the Court directed respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's case in terms of Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.5 of 2005 (Act No.3 of 2006) and release the mortgaged plots. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶1

APHC010132402025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7213/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

PADMASREE REAL ESTATES AND CONSTRUCTIONS,, D.NO.4-72-1,2ND FLOOR, LAWSONS BAY COLONY, BEACH ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, G.T.R. KISHORE, S/O.G.SATYANARAYANA

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶14

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER.

¶15

JONNADA GRAM PANCHAYAT, JONNADA, DENKADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High

¶18

//2//

¶19

Court may be pleased tomay pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent. No.4 in not releasing the mortgaged plots numbering a total of 22 i.e. Plot No.1 to 18 and Plot No.94 to 97, of petitioner in LP No 80/2007 situated in Sy.Nos.43/P, 44/P and 48/P of Jonnada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the established principles of promissory estoppel, consequently direct the 4th respondent to release the mortgaged plots of petitioner and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 4*^ Respondent to consider the representations, dt.20.01.2025 and 09.05.2014, for releasing of mortgage plots pending disposal of writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

2.Somisetty Ganesh Babu SC For VUDA and MUDA

¶27

3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

//3//

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.7213 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondent No.4 in not releasing the mortgaged plots i.e., Plot Nos.1 to 18, 94 to 97 forming part and parcel of LP.Nos.80/2007 in Sy.Nos.43/P, 44/P and 48/P of Jonnada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the layout permission was approved by the 4^th respondent vide proceedings dated 22.12.2007. It is also submitted that the respondents have not released the plots which were mortgaged inspite of completion of the project in all aspects. It is submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner challenged the demand of the respondents in insisting on payment of NALA Charges. The petitioner filed WP.No.13676 of 2014 aggrieved by the demand to pay the NALA conversion charges. Interim direction was granted by this Court and subsequently batch of writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court.

¶34

It is submitted that subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the 1^st respondent has issued ordinance on 03.09.2025 repealing the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural land (Conversion For

¶35

//4//

¶36

Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (Act No.3 of 2006). In view of the same, the demand for conversion of the petitioner’s land

¶37

from agricultural to non agricultural purpose cannot arise.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the ordinance, the intention of the State is to repeal the NALA Act and in terms of said ordinance, the case of the petitioner to be considered. It is submitted that pending applications would also have to be considered in pursuance of the ordinance.

¶39

Considering the submission and also considering the ordinance placed before this Court, there shall be a direction to the 4^th respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.5 of 2005 (Act No.3 of 2006) to consider and release the mortgaged plots of the petitioner.

¶40