Dismissed

Pilli Sunitha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/22956/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging non-issuance of occupancy certificate and water supply disruption, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the matter after reviewing written instructions. The Court found the corporation was roped into a private dispute and directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to reconsider the petitioner's representations within four weeks while noting allegations against the p

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representations and records on merit; Writ Petition disposed of; No order as to costs; Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pilli Sunitha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3458]

¶2

APHC010424272026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 22956 OF 2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

PILLI SUNITHA, W/O. SRI PILLI TATA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O. FLAT NO.302, SECOND FLOOR, 'DELATA'S SATYA SOWDHA' APARTMENT, DOOR NO.21-11-14/6A, MADHURA NAGAR, MACHAVARAM JAGIR, SATYANARAYANAPURAM POST, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 011

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522227.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, N.T.R. DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 010.

¶15

VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY COMMISSIONER, CANAL ROAD, NEAR VINAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, ONE TOWN, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 001.

¶16

THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CANAL ROAD, NEAR VINAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, ONE TOWN, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 001.

¶17

¶18

SRI SAMEEUDDIN RAZA, S/O. SRI SHAIK SHAFIUDDIN, AGED ABOUT YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. R.S. INFRA, VIJAYAWADA, R/O. DOOR NO.21-11-14/6A, FLAT NO.502, 'DELTA'S SATYA SOWDHA' APARTMENT, MADHURA NAGAR, MACHAVARAM JAGIR, SATYANARAYANAPURAM POST, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 011.

¶19

SRI SHAIK SHAFIUDDIN ABBAS, , S/O. SRI SHAIK SHAMSUDDIN, AGED ABOUT YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. R.S. INFRA, VIJAYAWADA, RIO. D.NO.43-106/1-58, INDRA NAYAK STREET, NEW SINGH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 010.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.C B ADARSH KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶25

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

3.PARA SHIVA KUMAR

¶27

4.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

Heard Sri C.B.Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.V.S.S.Sivaram, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the representations of the petitioner dated 10.08.2026 and 17.06.2026.

¶31

¶32

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4 has placed before the Court a copy of the written instructions received from the 3^rd respondent dated 11.08.2026. A perusal of the same would reflect as follows:

¶33

“3. It is submitted that VMC did not disconnect the water supply to the petitioner's flat. The common municipal water supply connection provided to the said building is undisturbed and is in operation. The water connection to the petitioner's flat is internal arrangement for water supply to each flat and VMC is not concerned with the same. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily against the 5^th and 6^th respondents and the corporation is roped into their private dispute for the purpose of the present writ petition. There is no disruption of municipal water supply to the said building.

¶34

4. In so far as non-issuance of occupancy certificate is concerned, the application of the building permission did not submit notice of completion of building as per Rule 32 of A.P. Building Rules and also did not make application for issuance of occupancy certificate. Therefore, VMC did not issue occupancy certificate. At present, the entire building is under occupation of several persons and the petitioner purchased the mortgaged flat in the 2^nd floor of the building. The aforesaid mortgage deed is not released till date.

¶35

5. Pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner, the authorities of VMC verified the premises and noted that the entire stilt area is being used only for the purpose of parking and that entire building is occupied by residents and that terrace is locked.

¶36

6. All the allegations against VMC are created for the purpose of the writ petition. The petitioner approached Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. The petitioner suppressed the fact she purchased

¶37

¶38

mortgaged flat despite having knowledge of the same and also the personal disputed with the respondents 5 and 6.

¶39

7. VMC is contemplating to take appropriate action against the same. The respondent authorities are not concerned with the personal and private disputed between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 and the disconnection of municipal and bore water supply to the petitioner allegedly by the 5^th and 6^th respondents is the private dispute between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent and the said issue cannot be attributed to the Corporation. VMC will take appropriate action against the said building in accordance with law.”

¶40

The written instruction of the 3^rd respondent dated 11.08.2026 is placed on record.

¶41

Having regard to the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.3 & 4 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner dated 10.08.2026 and 17.06.2026, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶42

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

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

¶44

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶45

Dated: 11.09.2026 BSK

¶46

¶47

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶49

WRIT PETITION NO: 22956 OF 2026

¶50

Dated: 11.09.2026 BSK

Pilli Sunitha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pilli Sunitha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases