Pandiri Ramana Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

PANDIRI RAMANA BABU, S/O PENTAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.10-79/10, THATICHETIA PALEM, SAGAR NAGAR, GREATER VISAKHA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530045.

¶10

PANDIRI KAMALA,, W/O PANDIRI RAMANA BABU, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 10-79/10, THATICHETIA PALEM, SAGAR NAGAR, GREATER VISAKHA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530045.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 530045

¶15

THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, MADHURAWADA ZONE, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM. 530045

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

2

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 530045

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, SAGAR NAGAR SECTION OFFICE, MADHURAWADA ZONE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. 530045

¶20

NALLURI PADMAVATHI AND OTHERS, RESIDENTS OF VSR SRINIVASAM APARTMENTS SAGAR NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530045.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶23

1.RAJESH MATCHA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶26

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORAL ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri Itihaas Gumma, learned Counsel representing Sri Rajesh Matcha, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation.

¶30

Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Zonal Commissioner, Madhurawada zone, GVMC, dated 02.04.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the same is taken on record.

¶31

The Written Instructions would indicate that, since the Petitioners and one Sri Pandrikaran are claiming rights over/occupying the subject property without producing any valid documents from the Pattadar, the issue is under

¶32

3

¶33

further verification and action will be taken strictly in accordance with the Act, Rules, and Building Regulations in force.

¶34

This Court has perused the Impugned Proceedings dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P.1), which indicate that the Assistant City Planner (Respondent No.3) has merely issued a Notice requiring the Writ Petitioner to produce a copy of the Approved Plan, Ownership Documents, Link Documents, and Permissions within seven days from the service of the Notice.

¶35

Having considered the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners have approached this Court prematurely without giving any Explanation to the Respondent Authorities. Under Section 635 of the APMC Act 1955, the Proceedings dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P.1) have only directed the Petitioners to produce all the documents for proper verification.

¶36

In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and also an abuse of process.

¶37