Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kilari Hariprasad, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
APHC010282782025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 14280/2025
Between:
1. KILARI HARIPRASAD,, S/O RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O PLOT NO.97,
PADMAVATHINAGAR, 1ST LINE, DHARMAPURI ROAD,
VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. CHOPPA PRABHAKARA REDDY,, S/O VENKATA SUBBA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O
H.NO.8-3-979/1246, FLAT NO.503B, VISHNU SPLENDOR,
H.P.GAS GODOWN, SRINAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (VMRDA), PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, UDYOG BHAVAN, SIRIPURAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
4. M/S SUBHA GRUHA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER, NAGALLA VENKATARAO,
S/O LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, D.NO.50-50-33/3, 1ST FLOOR,
J.R.PIAZA, SEETHAMMADHARA, GURUDWAR JUNCTION,
NH5 ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. GATTAMANENI SATYANARAYANA, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, -
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.308, A-BLOCK,
SATYAKALYANI APARTMENTS, VEMULAVALASA,
ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
//2//
WP.No.14280 of 2025
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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the
Proceedings vide bearing RC NO. 11025(37)49/2025 (e-2761924)
dated 04.06.2025 and the consequential Layout Approval/Permission
vide bearing L.P.No.l0/2025/1167/VMRDA/DPMS dated 10.06.2025
issued by the Respondent No.2 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary.
unreasonable, unjust, irrational, discriminatory, whimsical, colorable
exercise of power, dehors jurisdiction and ultra vires the vested powers
and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of
India and in utter violation of Principles of Natural Justice besides
being bereft of application of mind and contrary to the provisions
contemplated under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988,
Indian Easements Act, 1882, Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation
Act, 1994, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and
Rules made thereunder and consequently to set-aside the same and
to pass such
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 may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings vide bearing
RC NO. 11025(37)49/2025 (e- 2761924) dated 04.06.2025 and the
consequential Layout Approval/Permission vide bearing L.P.No.
10/2025/1167/VMRDA/DPMS dated 10.06.2025 issued by the
Respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to
pass such
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 desist the Respondent No.4 and 5 from
creating any third- party rights over property admeasuring Ac.9.32 Cts
in Sy.No.268/2, 3P, 4, 5P, 6P, 276/3P, 13P, 14, 15, 16, 17P, 18P,
277/lP, 2P and 4P situated at Dakamarri Village, Bhimunipatnam
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District either by way of lease, sale or by any
other mode of alienation and pass such
IA NO: 3 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 direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to
take further steps against the Respondent No.4 and 5 under the
//3//
WP.No.14280 of 2025
provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and pass
such
IA NO: 4 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 vacate the interim order dt.18.06.2025 in lA No.
1 of 2025 in WP No. 14280 of 2025 and pass
IA NO: 5 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 vacate the interim order dated
18.06.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025 in W.P.No. 14280 of 2025 and also
dismiss the writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2. P RAJKUMAR
3. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR
4. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA
The Court made the following:
//4//
WP.No.14280 of 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.14280 OF 2025
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of proceedings Rc.No. 11025(37)/49/2025 (e-2761924), dated 04.06.2025 and consequent layout approval bearing LP.No. 10/2025/1167/VMRDA/BMPS, dated 10.06.2025.
2. Sri.N.Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.10.97 cents in Sy.No.277, 278 and 279 situated at Dakamarri Village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam. It is submitted that the 4th respondent also owns land admeasuring Ac.9.32 cents in Sy.No.268/2, 3P, 4, 5P, 6P, 276/3P, 13P, 14, 15, 16, 17P, 18P, 277/1P, 2P and 4P. The land of the petitioner and the land of the 4th respondent share a common boundary line.
3. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has applied for layout permit on 18.02.2025 and got approved the layout on 11.03.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a complaint/objections on 03.03.2025 to the 2nd respondent seeking indulgence of the 2nd respondent addressing the blockage of internal road access by the 4th respondent.
4. The 2nd respondent issued a shortfall notice on 04.04.2025 to the 4th respondent calling upon the 4th respondent to specifically //5// WP.No.14280 of 2025 explain on the complaint raised by the petitioner with regard to blockage of road access.
5. The learned senior counsel further submits that GOMs.No.3, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 09.01.2025 had amended the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub Division) Rules, 2017 and amended Rule 11(3) and made it mandatory for making provision for atleast one internal road which leading from approach road shall be of 12 meters for layout areas upto five acres and for layout areas more than five acres atleast two such roads to be proposed to maintain hierarchy of roads as well as to provide integration with neighbouring lands.
6. It is submitted that as the respondents were not considering the representation dated 03.03.2025, the petitioner filed WP.No.13159 of 2025 and this Court passed interim directions on 09.05.2025 directing the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioners before issuing any layout permissions to the 4th respondent by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 4th respondent therein.
7. The learned senior counsel further submits that in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court in WP.No.13159 of 2025, the 2nd respondent passed a speaking order dated 04.06.2025, //6// WP.No.14280 of 2025 however, did not consider any of the points raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has mislead the 2nd respondent by projecting that the land on the eastern side of the 4th respondent was sold to third parties and that there is a private property of a third party between the petitioner's property and the 4th respondent's property. The 2nd respondent has while disposing off the representation of the petitioner observed that the layout development permission issued to the 4th respondent is in accordance with the road circulation pattern.
8. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has resorted to creation of documents only to deny road access and integration of the internal roads in any layout. It is submitted that the execution of Agreement of Sale - Cum - GPA of Sale dated 15.04.2025 are created only for denying access to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the said transaction is a benami transaction and thus would have to be disregarded for any purposes.
9. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Agreement of Sale - Cum - GPA does not refer to any prior agreement and that these registered documents are brought into existence only after the petitioner submitted objections on 03.03.2025. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited(2) Through Director Vs. //7// WP.No.14280 of 2025 State of Haryana and another1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that sale agreement/GPA/will transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in immovable property and it was held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by registered deed of conveyance.
10. The learned senior counsel places reliance on C.B.Gautam V. Union of India and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 28 as follows ;
28. "It must, however, be borne in mind that a courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant sections a requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made which would have adverse civil consequences for the parties affected. This would be particularly so in a case where the validity of the section would be open to a serious challenge for want of such an opportunity".
11. It is submitted that the respondent has not addressed the concerns of the petitioner and got carried away by the misrepresentations of the 4th respondent. As such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside as the layout permission granted to the 4th respondent is completely in contravention with the amended Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules, 2017.
12. Sri.Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri.B.Surya Kiran, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the layout 1 2011 RCDR CIVIL SC 4 669 2 1992 SCALE 3 138 //8// WP.No.14280 of 2025 permission granted to the 4th respondent is completely in accordance with the rules and that there is no truth in the allegation that the agreement of sale cum GPA were generated after the petitioner raising the concerns vide his representation dated 03.03.2025.
13. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has executed agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of the 5th respondent in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 05.06.2024. It is submitted that the agreement of sale cum GPA was registered on 15.04.2025. It is also submitted that the property towards the eastern side of the 4th respondent was never shown as a part of the layout as the respondent had executed agreement of sale for the said extent of land in the month of June, 2024 itself. As such, did not include the said land for layout approval.
14. It is submitted that when the land belong to the 5th respondent is beyond the layout it cannot be included as part of layout by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had suppressed from this Court the details of the application seeking layout permission from 2nd respondent on 09.09.2025 by showing the 12 meter access road. It is submitted that the petitioner also suppressed the filing of WP.No.1841 of 2025 in the present writ petition. It is submitted that WP.No.1841 of 2025 was filed for removal of //9// WP.No.14280 of 2025 encroachments in the government land in an extent of Ac.0.32 cents situated in Sy.No.280. The said encroachment relates to the 12 meter road access. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner had filed the said writ petition in his individual capacity, however, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has suppressed mentioning about the WP.No.1841 of 2025.
15. It is submitted that the petitioner and the 4th respondent are in the business of real-estate and rival entity in the same business cannot seek for cancellation of permissions and also cannot challenge the permissions granted to the other party. It is also submitted that the petitioner is seeking to direct respondents 2 and 3 take further steps against the respondents 4 and 5 under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988.
16. It is submitted that there is a procedure contemplated under the Act for declaring any transaction as Benami. The matter has to be dealt by the adjudicating authority and then the Appellate Tribunal. As such, the claim of the petitioner for initiating action under the Benami transactions Act cannot run contrary to the procedure laid out the act.
17. The learned senior counsel places reliance on Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others3, 3 (1976) 1 SCC 671 //10// WP.No.14280 of 2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant has no locus to move the jurisdiction under Article 226 while dealing with the petition of rival of rival in trade sought for cancellation of license granted to the other party.
18. The 2nd respondent also filed counter along with a vacate stay petition. It is submitted that the layout approval was granted strictly in accordance with the applicable laws and after disposing off the petitioner's representation as directed by this Court in WP.No.13159 of 2025. It is submitted that the petitioner and the 4th respondent attended the hearing and the 4th respondent and the petitioner have shown the layout plans and only after examining them it was found that the layout application of 4th respondent was found to have provided proper road circulation pattern in their land upto the proposed boundary.
19. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 2, 4 and 5. Perused the material on record.
20. The petitioner is seeking to declare the proceedings dated 04.06.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequent layout approval/permission dated 10.06.2025 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable etc., //11// WP.No.14280 of 2025
21. In order to justify the relief, the petitioner would have to demonstrate the illegality committed by the respondent authority in disposing the representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2025 and the illegality in grant of lay out permission dated 10.06.2025.
22. This Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner vide the representation dated 03.03.2025. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent has issued notice to the 4th respondent and the petitioner for conducting a hearing. A hearing was conducted which was attended by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, documents were furnished by both the petitioner and the 4th respondent which were perused by the authority. A speaking order was passed on 04.06.2025. In so far as passing of the speaking order is concerned no malafides can be attributed to the 2nd respondent.
23. Grant of layout in favour of 4th respondent by the 2nd respondent is after verifying the plans and documents which is well within the power of the 2nd respondent. No illegality or irrationality can be pointed out in granting layout after verification of the plans and documents.
//12// WP.No.14280 of 2025
24. The only point for consideration is whether the 4th respondent has brought into existence the registered agreement of sale cum GPA on 15.04.2025 after the petitioner raised objections on 03.03.2025 and whether the said documents were brought into existence only for denying road access to the petitioner's layout.
25. The 4th respondent has filed the copy of agreement of sale dated 05.06.2024 along with his counter and vacate stay petition. This would indicate that the property which was sold to the 5th respondent in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 05.06.2024 was never part of the land for which layout was sought for. The said land is abetting the petitioner's land and the 4th respondent's land. This Court finds no illegality in execution of the said documents. As long as these documents remain on record, the petitioner cannot see integration of the roads of the petitioner's proposed layout and the roads of the approved layout of the respondent No.4.
26. The petitioner has suppressed mentioning about the filing of WP.No.1841 of 2025. The prayer in the said writ petition would relate to the alleged encroachment engulfing the 12 meter road access shown by the petitioner's in their proposed layout. However, though the prayer in the said writ petition is with reference to the alleged encroachment nothing could have //13// WP.No.14280 of 2025 precluded the petitioner from mentioning about filing of the writ petition by the 1st petitioner in his individual capacity.
27. The amendment to Rule 11 Sub Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub Division) Rules, 2017 would refer to integration hierarchy of roads as well as to provide integration with neighbouring lands. Insofar as, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is concerned that circulation plan of the internal roads is missing when compared to the petitioner's land is concerned, the land of the 5th respondent is bifurcating the land of the petitioner and the 4th respondent.
28. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are in the same real-estate business and the proposed layout of the petitioner and the approved layout of the 4th respondent are distinct and different and the property standing on the name of the 5th respondent demarcates and bifurcates the two properties. There is no force in the contention that the petitioner's property is abutting the 4th respondent's property.
29. It is for the petitioner to provide access in terms of the amended rules for grant of layout approval and there is no justification in challenging the well considered speaking order dated //14// WP.No.14280 of 2025 04.06.2025 which was passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent.
30. Accordingly, this court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings Rc.No.11025(37)/49/2025 (e-2761924), dated 04.06.2025 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
31. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:17.10.2025 KGM //15// WP.No.14280 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.14280 of 2025 Dated 17.10.2025 KGM