Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/16330/2012 of M. Sesha Ratna Karuna, Vs Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, on 21 July 2026
Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010177742012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO:
HN, J
W.P.No.16330_2012
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010177742012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 16330/2012
Between:
1. M. SESHA RATNA KARUNA,, W/O. SRI M.T.V.RATNAKAR OCC:
BUSINESS, R/O. D. NO. 23A-3-60C , GUBBALA VARI STREET, R.R.PETA, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. ELURU
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
ELURU,
REP.
BY
IS
COMMISSIONER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
2. SMT D SYAMALA KALYANI W/O D NARASIMAHA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER R/O FLAT NO. 1 - B, SRI RAJ
JAYALAKSHMI RESIDENCY D.NO.24A - 16 - 8, 28TH DIVISION, ALLASANI PEDDANA STREET, ELURU - 534002, W.G.DISTRICT.
3. D RAMA DEVI D/O LATE A SANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 1 - B, SRI RAJ JAYALAKSHMI RESIDENCY, D.NO.24A - 16 - 8, 28TH DIVISION, ALLASANI PEDDANA STREET, ELURU - 534002, W.G.DIST RR 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
THE COURT'S ORDER, DT.11.09.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN
I.A.1 OF 2014 (WPMP 1302 OF 2014)
...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 toIssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent and its subordinates in trying to demolish the pent house constructed on the terrace of the top floor of the building bearing Door No. 24A-16-8, Allasani Peddana Street, Eluru, West Godavari District pursuant to the notice bearing U.C.No.1/2012, dated:
09.05.2012, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent and its subordnates not to demolish the pent House constructed
HN, J
W.P.No.16330_2012
on the terrace of the top floor of the building bearing Door No.24A-16-8, Allasani Peddana Street, Eluru, West Godavari District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 20996 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
grant stay of demolition of the pent House constructed on the terrace of the top floor of the building bearing Door No.24A-16-8, Allasani Peddana Street, Eluru, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WVMP 942 OF 2013
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
To vacate the interim order of Status quo dated 5.6.2012 granted in WPMP
No. 20996 of 2012 in WP No. 16330 of 2012 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 1302 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein as respondent No.2 and 3 in the above writ petition and all consequential proceedings in the interest of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WVMP 5876 OF 2014
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DAMARAJU MADHUSUDHAN VIJAY KUMAR
2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP )
HN, J
W.P.No.16330_2012
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. The present writ petition is filed, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the notice dated 09.05.2012. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a developer who has developed a residential unit.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are impleaded in the present writ petition, had earlier filed a writ petition alleging that the petitioner had made unauthorized constructions. In pursuance to the representation submitted by respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice. It is submitted that both the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 had agreed, under the development agreement, for construction of the residential units along with a penthouse. It is further submitted that the impugned proceedings referred to the penthouse as an unauthorized construction. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 ought to have examined the development agreement and duly considered the application of the petitioner for regularization before issuing the impugned notice.
3. The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that efforts made to verify whether the building had been regularized did not yield any result, as the petitioner, when approached, refused to furnish the relevant details. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that they are the affected parties in the present writ petition and that the impugned proceedings have been issued in respect of the penthouse, which has been unauthorizedly constructed.
HN, J W.P.No.16330_2012
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unofficial respondents cannot object for the said construction, as they had agreed, under the development agreement, to the construction of the residential units with a pent house.
5. Be that as it may, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, vide order dated 05.06.2012, directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders.
6. Recording the same, the present writ petition is disposed off by directing the respondent No.1 to deal with any unauthorized construction in accordance with law. It is, therefore, left open for respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction, if, any, by issuing a proper notice to the petitioner and by following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:22.07.2026 NKA
Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
HN, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 16330 of 2012 Date: 22.07.2026
NKA