Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/31880/2015 of B.Kantha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31880/2015 Between: B.kantha, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh
APHC010367742015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAOWRIT PETITION NO: 31880/2015
Between:
B.kantha, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
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.
1. PALLA KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
The Court made the following Order:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the occupation of the land in an extent of 1933.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.275Ru satiated at ASR Colony (ASR Nagar), Near Seethammadhara, Greater Visakhapatnam limits, Visakhapatnam District, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2[nd] respondent to regularize the occupation of the petitioner in the terms of G.O.Ms.No.128, Revenue (Endt.IV(2)) Department, dated 25.01.2005….”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring 1933.33 sq.yards in Survey No.275Ru, ASR Colony (ASR Nagar), near Seethammadhara Greater Visakhapatnam limits, Visakhapatnam district (for short “subject property”) for the last twenty years. While so, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) requesting for approval of the plan for construction of house in the subject property. But the officials informed the petitioner that the 2[nd] respondent is claiming ownership over the entire land in Adavivaram surrounding villages and advised to approach the 2[nd] respondent for clearance/no objection certificate. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 2[nd] respondent with an application to regularize the occupation of the subject property, in view of uninterrupted longstanding possession of the subject property as per the guide lines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.128 Revenue (Entds.IV(2)) Department, dated 25.01.2005. But the 2[nd] respondent not received the application and directed the GVMC not to sanction any building permission to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner.
4. Heard Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondents.
5. On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the entire extent claimed by the petitioner is vacant and it is under the possession of the Devasthanam-2[nd] respondent only. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right to ask to regularize the occupation under the scheme of G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.08.2000, which is not in force now. He further submits that, in a similar case in W.P.No.22 of 2010 which is filed by one Surisetty Rajubabu was dismissed by this Court and the same was also confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.536 of 2010, dated 07.09.2000. Hence, the petitioner cannot have any right to ask for regularization of vacant land of this devasthanam. He further submits that the petitioner has no enforceable right for issuing a writ of Mandamus and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. On considering the submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, nothing survives in the present writ petition for any further adjudication and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
BMS
__________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J