Disposed

Smt M Manasa Veena v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2026WP/25518/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Municipal Corporation's failure to consider her representation seeking unblocking of property in an approved DTCP layout. The Corporation denied receiving such representation. The court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to file a fresh representation within two weeks, and directing the Corporation to decide it within four weeks after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation before the 4th respondent (Rajamahendravaram Municipal Corporation) within two weeks; direction to Corporation to dispose of such representation within four weeks after hearing the petitioner.

Smt M Manasa Veena Vs The State of Andhra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3458]

¶2

APHC010448702026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 18^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 25518 OF 2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

SMT M MANASA VEENA, W/O. V. KISHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER, J. ADILAKSHMI, W/O. J. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 74 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.104-9-164/1, AVA ROAD, RYTHU NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 4TH FLOOR, A.P. CRDA PROJECT OFFICE, RAYAPUDI, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DTCP, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522508.

¶16

THE RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533101.

¶17

THE CITY PLANNER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - 533101.

¶18

¶19

THE DEPUTY CITY PLANNER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533104.

¶20

THE TOWN PLANNING SURVEYOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533104.

¶21

THE RAJAHMUNDRY PUBLIC SERVANTS, CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/LIQUIDATOR, NO.B.144, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533101.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.G V SHIVAJI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶27

The Court made the following order:

¶28

Heard Smt. K.S.G.Padmavathi, learned counsel appearing for Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri ASC Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner's grievance in the instant writ petition is against the respondents' failure to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.07.2024, in which the petitioner requested the Corporation to unblock the subject property in the approved plan of the DTCP Layout.

¶30

¶31

Sri ASC Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, submits that as per the record, no such representation as stated has been addressed to the 4^th respondent.

¶32

Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the 4^th respondent for redressal of her grievance within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such application is filed, the respondent-Corporation shall accordingly dispose of the same after giving a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/filing of such application.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

_____________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶36

Dated: 18.09.2026 BSK

¶37

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO: 25518 OF 2026

¶41

Dated: 18.09.2026 BSK

Smt M Manasa Veena v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M Manasa Veena 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