Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/24341/2026 of KODEBOYINA KALYAN SRINIVAS Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 30 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24341/2026 Between: KODEBOYINA KALYAN SRINIVAS, S/O. KVR SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RIO. FLAT NO.101,
APHC010448082026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 24341/2026
Between:
KODEBOYINA KALYAN SRINIVAS, S/O. KVR SWAMY, AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, RIO. FLAT NO.101, SIGNATURE RESIDENCY, 1ST LINE, RAVINDRA NAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522
006.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 238.
2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TENNETI BHAVAN ASILMETTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530001.
3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, PENDURTHI ZONE, GREATER
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VEPAGUNTA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 047.
4. THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, PENDURTHI ZONE, GREATER
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VEPAGUNTA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 047.
5. SMT MARIDI DIVYA, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RIO FLAT NO.204, SRI NILAYA
APARTMENTS,
FACOR
LAYOUT,
WALTAIR
UPLANDS,
VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in not initiating action against the ongoing illegal construction carried out by the 5th respondent in Petitioner's layout bearing Plot No.24 in
S.No.6/4 of Pulagalipalem Village, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District an extent of 267 Sq.Yards, without having title and without getting permissions from the Authorities, while pending the Petitioner's Representation dt.20.08.2026 and also an injunction order dated 20.04.2026 passed in I.A. No. 365 of 2026 in O.S. No.174 of 2026 on the file I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Bheemunipatnam which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2026 and conduct enquiry and demolish the ongoing illegal construction of the 5th respondent in petitioner's layout bearing Plot No.24 in S.No.6/4 of Pulagalipalem Village, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District an extent of 267 Sq.Yards Counsel for the Petitioner:
N YASODA KUMARI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
1. Heard Ms.N.Yashoda Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that unofficial respondent without having any manner of right, possession and title over the subject land as well any sanction order proceeding with the construction.
3. She further submits that the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.174 of 2026 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Bheemunipatnam and obtained ad-interim injection, vide order dated 20.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.365 of 2026 in O.S.No.174 of 2026, against the unofficial respondent i.e., respondent No.5 herein and the said order was extended from time to time.
4. She further submits that the unofficial respondent would proceed with the construction and the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 20.08.2026, which is pending with the Municipal Corporation for consideration.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities would submit that the respondent No.5 submitted an application bearing Permit No.PER/1086/1936/2026, dated 10.07.2026, was sanctioned by GVMC in the name of Sri Maridi Venkat Sravan and the sanctioned proposal relates to S.No.6/4, Pulagalipalem village, Pendurthi Zone, and it covers Plat Nos.16 & 25, 17& 24 and 18 & 23 and the permission is for an individual residential building. He further submits that the order of the Court concerned reached to the Municipal Authorities subsequent to the process of the application and sanction of a building proposal after examination of the application and applicable rules.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities further submits that the allegations of the total inaction on the part of GVMC is incorrect and contrary to the municipal record and the GVMC had already initiated statutory proceedings against the alleged unauthorized construction by issuing notice dated 23.05.2026 under Section 461(1) and subsequently issued confirmation proceedings dated 06.06.2026 under Sections 45(2) and 461(2) of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Subsequently, a building proposal in S.No.6/4, Pulagalipalem, was sanctioned on 10.07.2026 in the name of Sri Maridi Venkata Sravan, subject to strict conditions and subject to verification of the documents and site conditions. He further submits that the said building permission does not confer any title or ownership rights and the rival claims of ownership and possession are already the subject matter of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.174 of 2024, hence, GVMC has acted within its statutory powers and there is no deliberate or willful inaction on the part of Respondent Nos.2 to 4. He also submits that if any unauthorized construction or deviation from the sanctioned plan is found upon inspection, GVMC will take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law and after following the prescribed procedure.
7. In the light of the submissions made, since the petitioner has already approached a competent Civil Court concerned and obtained ad- interim injunction order relating to the subject property against the unofficial respondent i.e., respondent No.5 herein and her representation is pending for consideration before the Municipal Authorities, it is apposite to dispose of the present writ petition directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to look into the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate decision according to the governing Rules and Law, after giving opportunity to the effected party in the light of the order passed by the competent Civil Court concerned, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
8. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 31.08.2026 Krs
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.No.24341 of 2026
( ORDER )
DATE: 31.08.2026
Krs