The State of Ap Vs Indugula Eswaramma — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The State of Ap Vs Indugula Eswaramma — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Appeal disposed of by modifying the learned Single Judge's order in W.P.No.21635 of 2009: instead of a direction to allot a house, the writ petitioner is at liberty to move an application for allotment of a house plot, to be considered in accordance with the housing policy in force; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed as a sequel.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner was still entitled to allotment of a house plot notwithstanding that her husband had been allotted a house site, which had been sold in 1991. +2 more

Court's answer

The Court declined to decide whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any house plot or whether the current policy prohibits such allotment, leaving those questions open.

Ratio / Principle

The writ appeal was to be disposed of by modifying the learned Single Judge's order to the extent of its direction that the respondent authorities allot a house to the writ petitioner.

Key takeaways

In place of a direction to allot a house, the writ petitioner was granted liberty to move an application for allotment of a house plot, to be considered by the respondents in accordance with the housing policy in force today.ratio¶40
The Writ Appeal stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.; per R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) disposed of a writ appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21635 of 2009, which had directed the authorities to allot a house to the writ petitioner under the group housing scheme. The writ petitioner had been allotted 60 sq. yards in Sy.No.129 of Vadlapudi Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, on 01.02.1999; the allotment was cancelled (16.04.1999; afresh by proceedings dated 15.07.2009 after remand through W.P.No.291 of 2002) on the ground that her husband had also been allotted a house site, which the family had sold in 1991. The Division Bench expressly declined to decide whether the petitioner was entitled to a house plot or whether the prevailing policy barring individual allotments within Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits applied. It modified the Single Judge's direction: the petitioner was given liberty to move an application for allotment of a house plot, to be considered in accordance with the housing policy then in force. Appeal disposed of; no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

[3529]

APHC010553502025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1114/2025

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated. 12.02.2025 in W.P.No.21635 of 2009 and to pass

Between:

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT VISAKHAPATNAM.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,, GAJUWAKA MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER,, GAJUWAKA MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

INDUGULA ESWARAMMA, W/o Sri Tata Rao R/o Chnnagantyada Village Gajuwaka Mandal Visakhapatnam District.

...RESPONDENT

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 condone the delay of 206 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025 in W.P.No. 21635 of 2009 and pass

2

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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 suspend the operation of the order dated 12.02.2023 made in W.P.No. 21635 of 2009 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and allow the Writ Appeal and pass

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.K RAMAMOHAN

3

The Court made the following Judgment:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner had been allotted 60 Sq.yards in Sy.No.129 of Vadlapudi Village of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapanam District, on 01.02.1999.. Later, this allotment was cancelled by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, by proceedings, dated 16.04.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, which came to be dismissed on 13.06.2001. Thereafter, W.P.No.291 of 2002 was filed before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was allowed on 06.11.2008 to consider the issue afresh. Thereupon, the District Collector – 1^st respondent by proceedings, dated 15.07.2009, cancelled the earlier allotment, dated 01.02.1999.

Aggrieved by this order of cancellation, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.21635 of 2009. The contention of the petitioner was that the earlier allotment was cancelled on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had also been allotted a house site and consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to second house site. The petitioner contends that this finding is improper inasmuch as the house site allotted to her husband had been sold to one K.Ramulu, H/o Smt.K.Veeresamma, on 30.11.1991, whereas other issues were also raised. In any event, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to allot a house

4

under the group housing scheme in terms of the housing policy which is in vogue.

Aggrieved by this order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the husband of the petitioner had been allotted a house plot and has produced the allotment orders. This contention is assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who contends that the said house plot had already been sold on account of the dire financial needs of the family and as such, the writ petitioner would still be entitled to a house plot.

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that the writ petitioner was not entitled to any house plot on account of the present policy that no house plots can be allotted, on an individual basis, within the municipal limits of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.

We do not propose to go into the question of whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any house plot or not and whether the current policy prohibits such allotment.

It would suffice to dispose of this writ appeal, modifying the order of the learned Single Judge, to the extent of directing the respondent authorities to allot a house to the writ petitioner. Instead, the writ petitioner is at liberty to move an application for allotment of a house plot. Such an application shall be

5

considered by the respondents, in accordance with the housing policy, which is in force today.

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 05.01.2026 KA

6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1114/2025