Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/16852/2025 of Pilla Himalaya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 July 2026
reserved for orders : --------------- Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010332692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO:
Date of reserved for orders : --------------- Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010332692025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 16852/2025
Between:
1. PILLA HIMALAYA,, S/O LATE PILLA APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS, D. NO 7-37, R/O REVALLAPALEM, AMRUTHANAGAR, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE
OFFICE
AT
VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
3. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
GVMC, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PM PALEM POLICE STATION, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003
5. SRI PASUPULETI ANAND KUMAR, S/O LATE SUDARSANAM
NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YRS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.
ABHILASHA SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXPORTS
PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT PLOT NO-15, KEERTHANA ENCLAVE, KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003
6. CHEEDIREDDI SATISH KUMAR, S/O CHEEDIREDDI APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS. FLAT NO 511, 4TH FLOOR, D. NO 7-37, PRESIDENT/SECRETARY OF ANAND CASTLE APARTMENTS, REVALLAPALEM, AMRUTHANAGAR, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530003
7. SAI, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS. FLAT NO 313, 2ND FLOOR, D. NO 7- 37, ANAND
CASTLE
APARTMENTS,
REVALLAPALEM,
AMRUTHANAGAR, MADHURAWADA,VISAKHAPATNAM-530003
8. BABU, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, FLAT NO 505, 4TH FLOOR, D. NO 7- 37, ANAND
CASTLE
APARTMENTS,
REVALLAPALEM,
AMRUTHANAGAR,
MADHURAWADA,
VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT.
9. MASINA KAMARAJU, FLAT NO 508, 4TH FLOOR, D. NO 7-37, ANAND
CASTLE
APARTMENTS,
REVALLAPALEM,
AMRUTHANAGAR,
MADHURAWADA,
VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT.
10. PUJARI ESWARARAO, S/O PUJARI VISHNU MURTHY. AGED
ABOUT 53 YRS. FLAT NO 103, GROUND FLOOR, D. NO 7-37, ANAND
CASTLE
APARTMENTS,
REVALLAPALEM,
AMRUTHANAGAR, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...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 topleased to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the action of the respondents that not removing the illegal construction of Wall and Arch is illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents to take immediate steps to remove the illegal construction of wall and Arch and prevent further encroachment in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 pleased to direct the respondent No3 to dispose of the representation dated 07-04-2025 pending disposal of the Writ Petition, IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to grant leave to file reply to the counter filed by the respondent No. 6 to 10 in WP.No. 16852 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KANITHI DEEPAK
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)
4. B.MADHU
WRIT PETITION NO: 16852 of 2025
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:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition is filed complaining of the inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in taking appropriate action against the construction of a boundary wall in the pathway abutting the petitioner's property. It is submitted that the boundary wall has been erected in such a manner that the ventilation and free circulation of air to the petitioner's property have been completely obstructed. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted representations to the competent authorities, including a representation dated 23.12.2024, seeking removal of the construction. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation issued an endorsement stating that action had been taken on the petitioner's earlier complaint and that the parties were advised to work out their remedies before the Police Authorities. It is submitted that, despite the representations submitted by the petitioner, the existence of the boundary wall has restricted the ventilation and natural light to the petitioner's property.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 10.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on the basis of written instructions, submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.119, MA&UD Department, dated 28.03.2017, the permissible height of the boundary wall, side wall and rear wall is 2.4 metres (7.87 feet) above the ground level. It is submitted that the officials of respondent No.3 inspected the subject premises and found that the flat owners of Anand Castle Apartment had constructed the boundary wall to a height of 7.8 feet, which is within the permissible limits prescribed under the said Rules.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 10 submits that the present writ petition has been filed only with an intention to harass the unofficial respondents. It is submitted that there was an understanding between the petitioner and the flat owners as early as on 09.07.2010. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 10 have filed an additional counter affidavit enclosing the sanctioned building plan, which clearly depicts the existence of the boundary wall. According to the learned counsel, respondent Nos.5 to 10 are entitled to construct the wall to safeguard the passage, which is the only entrance to the residential plots. He further submits that the counter affidavit show that the petitioner's property is abutting the passage and that the petitioner, while constructing the property, has not left any setbacks, which has resulted in the obstruction of sunlight and circulation of air.
5. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner and the unofficial respondents to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:06.07.2026 RSD
Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned ☑ Reportable
Non-reportable ☑
WRIT PETITION NO: 16852 of 2025 Date: 06.07.2026
RSD