Chintakunta Nagalakshmi, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Mun. Adm. & Ano. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chintakunta Nagalakshmi, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Mun. Adm. & Ano. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All three writ petitions disposed of: Impugned Orders dated 23.09.2013 set aside; parties given liberty to settle their disputes in the pending cancellation suits; writ petitioners given liberty to challenge the maintainability of the suit kept unnumbered since 2019; interim order (restraint from further action) continued till disposal of the respective suits; nothing expressed on merits, which the Civil Court is to decide; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Proceedings/Notice issued by VUDA dated 23.09.2013, requiring the petitioners to show cause why the allotments of plots (made in lieu of compensation and evidenced by sale deeds) should not be cancelled as illegal, irregular and improper, could stand. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petitions were disposed of setting aside the Impugned Orders dated 23.09.2013, with no order as to costs.

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the facts of the cases, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with liberty to the parties to settle the disputes in the pending suits.

Key takeaways

It is left open to the writ petitioners to challenge the maintainability of the suits which are filed and kept unnumbered since 2019, in accordance with law.ratio¶69
The Court clarified that it had not expressed anything on the merits, and that the Civil Court shall decide the pending suits on their own merits.ratio¶71
The interim order earlier granted in favour of the writ petitioners (not to initiate any further action) shall stand continued till the disposal of the respective suits, if already filed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos. 30461 of 2013, 6876 & 11516 of 2014) challenging VUDA Proceedings dated 23.09.2013, by which a show-cause notice was issued as to why the allegedly illegal, irregular and improper allotments of plots — allotted in lieu of compensation, with sale deeds executed in lieu thereof (including Plot Nos.12, 13, 14, 19 and 20 in Sy.No. 370/2 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam) — should not be cancelled. Since Respondent No.2 (VUDA) had instituted suits for cancellation of the sale deeds, one of which remained pending unnumbered since 2019, and since similarly placed petitioners' writs had already been disposed of in the same pattern (orders in W.P.No.2673 of 2014 and batch, dated 06.02.2026), the Court disposed of these writ petitions setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.09.2013, granting the parties liberty to settle their disputes in the pending suits and leaving the writ petitioners free to challenge the maintainability of the unnumbered suit. The Court expressly did not express anything on the merits, directing the Civil Court to decide the pending suits on their own merits. The interim order restraining further action stands continued till disposal of the respective suits; interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs.

[3328]

APHC010745342013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

W.P.Nos. 30461 of 2013, 6876 & 11516 of 2014

WRIT PETITION NO: 30461/2013

Between:

SMT. PODAGATLAPALLI BHANUMATHI,, W/O LATE RAMBABU, R/O D.NO.18-3-23, 1ST LINE, KEDARESWARAPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

PODAGATLAPALLI ANANTHA,, S/O LATE RAMBABU, R/O D.NO.183-23, 1ST LINE, KEDARESWARAPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINSTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., AT SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.T SUJAN KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2

1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

3.P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD(SC FOR VUDA)

WRIT PETITION NO: 6876/2014

Between:

CHINTAKUNTA NAGALAKSHMI, HYD., W/O C. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O H.NO.8-2-293/82/JIII/473/C-1, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA ENCLAVE, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

...PETITIONER

AND

PRL SECY MUN ADM ANO, SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.C SUMON

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

WRIT PETITION NO: 11516/2014

Between:

REDNAM VENKATA SESHA CHALAPATHI, VISAKHAPATNAM & 3 OTHERS, S/O LATE R.V.HARI KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO.47-11-15, REDNAM ESTATES, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 016.

SMT.REDNAM REKHA,, W/O. R.A.S.D.NAIDU, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O H.NO.MIG-99, D.NO.50-118-1/6, SEETHAMMADHARA, N.E.,

3

VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 013.

SRI M.SRI HARSHA MANDAPALIE, S/O M.SANKAR PRASAD SARMA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7-89/3, CHEPURUPALLI STREET, BOBBILI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

SMT. CHANDANA SAMEERA, W/O M.SRI HARSHA MANDAPALLE, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7/89/3, CHEPURUPALLI STREET, BOBBILI VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

SECY MAUD DEPT HYD 3 OT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 003.

THE VICECHAIRMAN VISAKHAPATNAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 003

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.T V SRI DEVI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

3.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

The Court made the following:

4

COMMON ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri C. Sumon, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.6876 of 2014 and Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.No.11516 of 2014, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri T. Karthik Chandra Mouli, learned Counsel representing Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned Standing Counsel for VUDA & MUDA.

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Proceedings issued by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority dated 23.09.2013. It is stated that the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 30461 of 2013 is the Original Owner of Plot Nos.12, 13, 14, 19, and 20 in Sy.No. 370/2 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam.

It is submitted that these Plots were allotted in lieu of payment of compensation and Sale Deeds were also executed in lieu of such compensation. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2, namely VUDA, had issued the Impugned Notice to show cause as to why the illegal, irregular, and improper allotments made to the Petitioners herein should not be cancelled. Some of the Writ Petitioners in this batch of matters are subsequent Purchasers from the Original Vendees. Other similarly situated persons, who had also received the same Show Cause Notice, have approached this Court by filing similar Writ Petitions.

At this stage, Respondent No. 2 had informed the Court that Suits have been filed by Respondent No. 2 for Cancellation of the Sale Deeds. On the basis of this submission by the Respondent No.2, several Writ Petitions were also disposed of, allowing the Parties to sort out their disputes in the pending Suits. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed all such Orders (passed in W.P.No.2673 of 2014 and batch, dated 06.02.2026).

It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, based on the Written Instructions furnished by the Estate Officer & Special Grade Deputy

5

Collector, VMRDA, Visakhapatnam, dated 31.03.2026, that one Suit has not been filed and the same is pending for being numbered since the year 2019. The said Suit relates to Cancellation of Sale Deeds executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of the Petitioner in W.P.No. 30461 of 2013. Insofar as the other two Writ Petitions are concerned, the Petitioners therein are subsequent Purchasers from the Original Vendees of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.30461 of 2013.

Having regard to the facts of these cases, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions with liberty to the Parties to settle the disputes in the pending Suits. It is left open to the Writ Petitioners to challenge the maintainability of the Suits which are filed and kept unnumbered since 2019, in accordance with law.

With these observations and directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of, setting aside the Impugned Orders dated 23.09.2013. No order as to costs.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merit, and the Civil Court shall decide the pending Suits before it on their own merits.

It transpires from the record that this Court had granted an Interim Order in favour of the Writ Petitioners not to initiate any further action. The same shall stand continued till the disposal of the respective Suits, if already filed.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

_________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 01.04.2026 DSV

6

218

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

W.P.Nos. 30461 of 2013, 6876 & 11516 of 2014

01.04.2026

DSV

7

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

MAIN CASE No. W.P.Nos.30461 of 2013, 6876 & 11516 of 2014

PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl. No	DATE	ORDER	Office Note
	01.04.2026	GRKP, J
		Writ Petitions are disposed of. (vide separate common order)
		___________ GRKP, J DSV

8