WP/16070/2026 of B. Vengala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September 2026

1. B. Vengala Rao, S/o late B. Subbarayudu, Aged 46 years, R/o D.No. 16- 983, Masapet, Kadapa Town, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District Andhra Pradesh, Pin Code 516001 ...Petitioner AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522503.

2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, Collectorate Office, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh - 516001.

3. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Office, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh - 516001.

4. The Tahsildar, Kadapa Mandal, Tahsildar Office Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh - 516001.

5. M Sridevi, W/o M. Sreenivasulu, Aged 48 years, Occ Household, D.No. 116-3-7, WardNo.43, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh - 516004. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: VALLURI HEMANTH MANIKANTA CHARY Counsel for the Respondents: POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In Counsel for the Respondents: PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

The Court made the following Order:

Heard Sri Giri Babu Marthi, learned counsel representing Sri Valluri Hemanth Manikanta Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3/Corporation and Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in not passing any orders on the representation of the petitioner submitted through Grievance Cell dated 01-09-2025 & 17-03- 2026, seeking cancellation of building granted permission in favour of the unofficial respondent.

3. It is contended that the petitioner has made a complaint against the unofficial respondent to the Commissioner, Kadapa Municipality, and the District Collector, Kadapa District, alleging that the unofficial respondent had unauthorizedly occupied the subject property, which was allotted in favour of the petitioner’s father.

4. The unofficial respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner’s father had sold the subject property in favour of one Sri Bayana Ramachandrudu in the year 1985 vide registered sale deed dated 12-12- 1985, wherein the said Bayana Ramachandrudu sold the property in favour of the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on 08-03-2001. After purchasing the property the petitioner has also applied for building permission. The respondent authorities have granted permission vide proceedings dated 09-10-2010. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the petitioner also completed the building.

5. Having regard to the respective contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner as reflecting from the representation made to the respondents is for restoration of the possession of the plot in his/their favour sold by his father in 2001 in favour of the unofficial respondent, which I am view that the remedy lies to the appropriate Court of law, given the request of the petitioner in the representation, that the plot should be restored in favour of the petitioner does not merit for consideration in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies under law.

6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 18-09-2026 MSI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 16070 OF 2026

Dated: 18-09-2026 MSI