High Court for State of TelanganaWP/37152/2015disposed of no costs

Maddala Appala Mutyala Rao , Mutyala Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2015-11-16C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37152 of 2015 Dated 16.11.2015 Between:

Maddala Appala Mutyala Rao @ Mutyala Rao ... Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary Hyderabad and 2 others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Amarnath Yadav Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Administration (AP) Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.N.Venkateswarlu, SC for Municipalities Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared

The Court made the following:

O r d e r :

The petitioner, who claims to have constructed a building over a plot claimed to have been assigned to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram, as far back as the year 1986, filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the alleged interference by respondent No.2- Municipality and its attempt to demolish the building constructed by him. Mr.N.Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities representing respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.3 approached the Lokayukta with the complaint that the petitioner has raised construction over the Government land claiming his title under a fake assignment; that the Lokayukta has called for a report from the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, as well as respondent No.2; and that in connection therewith, respondent No.

2 has addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, on the genuineness or otherwise of the patta claimed to have been granted in favour of the petitioner. He has further submitted that, at the moment, respondent No.2 has not initiated any action against the petitioner either for cancellation of building permission or for demolition of the building and that if, in future, any such move is contemplated, it will follow the due process of law under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. The submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Municipality are placed on record and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.47828 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 16th November, 2015 LUR