Allapati Srinivasa Rao v. The Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri, Urban

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32381 OF 2012

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed stating that the petitioner is a resident of Gollapudi Village. While so, the respondents 5 and 6 are constructing a shopping complex without obtaining building permission from the official respondent at RS.No.551/1, of Gollapudi Village. When the said fact was acknowledged by the respondent No.1 vide information dated 05.07.2012, he directed the Panchayat Secretary, Gollapudi vide notice dated 09.02.2010 to take action against the unauthorised constructions made by the respondents 5 and 6. In pursuance to the same, the Panchayat Secretary, issued show cause notice dated 19.02.2010 to respondent No.5 intimating that the construction of shopping complex be removed and the expenses incurred for the same shall be recovered by respondent No.5. But under the guise of the status-quo order in W.P.No.

6329/2006, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 made constructions unauthorisedly and the said writ petition was disposed of on 10.03.2011. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 made application for building regularisation on 30.04.2008 under A.P. Regulation and Penalization of unauthorisedly Constructed Buildings and in Deviation of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2007, but the said application was rejected. Against the same, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an appeal. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the alleged threat of demolition of the said shopping complex, filed W.P.No.23499/2012 and this Court in WPMP.No.3033/2012 in W.P.No.23499/2012 granted status-quo order.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.38790/2012 to implead himself in the said writ petition and WPMP.No.3033/2012 to vacate the interim order, but the same are pending. In spite of repeated requests by the petitioner, the official respondents have not initiated any action against the respondent Nos.5 and 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the writ

petition is misconceived. It is stated that the Gram Panchayat-3rd respondent has already issued notices to respondents 5 and 6 on 19.02.2010 and 16.10.2010 respectively directing them not to proceed with further construction and also directed to remove the illegal construction. It is also stated that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed W.P.Nos.23499 of 2012 and W.P.No.33564 of 2012 and obtained status-quo order on 31.07.2012 and 30.10.2012 respectively. In view of the said order, the respondents could not take further action. It is further stated that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not made any application seeking permission for construction before V.G.T.M. but have filed application seeking regularisation of the said illegal constructions made. After careful examination of the said applications, the VGTM has rejected the request of the 5th and 6th respondents.

Heard Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt K.Manideepika, learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri S.S.Verma, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. In the instant case, though the applications made by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 for regularisation of the constructions were rejected, the respondents could not take further action because of the status-quo order granted in W.P.Nos.23499/2012 and 33564/2012. Since no action can be initiated by the 3rd respondent till the disposal of W.P.Nos.23499 of 2012 and 33564/2012, it cannot be said that the action of the 3rd respondent, in not taking action against the respondents 5 and 6 as illegal. However, since W.P.No.23499 of 2012 is disposed of today to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondents 4 and 5 against the rejection of regularisation, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondents 4 and 5 and thereafter take appropriate action according to law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 22.06.2015 dv