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
QMS
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOB
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 14280 OF 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
...Petitioners
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.Plaza, 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
...Respondents
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 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 I
Layout
Approval/Permission vide bearing L.P.No.lO/2025/1167A/MRDA/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 uitra 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.
lA NO: 1 OF
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court 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. 10/2025/1167A/MRDA/DPMS dated
10-06-2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above
writ petition.
lANOj2OF2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court 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/IP, 2P and 4P situated at Dakamarri
Village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District either by way of
lease, sale or by any other mode of alienation.
lA NO: 3 OF 2Q2fi
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to take further steps against the
Respondent No.4 and 5 under the provisions of Benami Transactions
(Prohibition) Act, 1988.
lA NO: 4 OF 2025
Between;
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.Plaza, Seethammadhara, Gurudwar Junction, NH5 Road,
Visakhapatnam.
Petitioner/Respondent No.4
AND
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
Respondents/Writ Petitioners
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Authority Department, Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
4. The Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority,
(VMRDA), Planning Department, Udyog Bhavan, Siripuram Visakhapatnam,
Rep. by its Commissioner.
5. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Rep.
by its Commissioner.
6. Gattamaneni Satyanarayana, S/o Sambasiva Rao,
Aged 49 years, R/o Flat No. 308, A-Block, Satyakalyani
Apartments, Vemulavalasa, Anandapuram Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
Responents/RR-1 to 3 & 5
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim order dt.18.06.2025 in lA No. 1 of 2025 in WP
No. 14280 of 2025.
lA NO: 5 OF 207fi
Between:
The Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority, (VMRDA),
Planning Department, Udyog Bhavan, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
Petitioner/2"'' Respondent
AND
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
Respondents/Petltioners
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Authority Department, Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
4. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Rep.
by its Commissioner.
5. 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.
6. Gattamaneni Satyanarayana, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 49 years
R/o Flat No.308, A-Block, Satyakalyani Apartments, Vemulavalasa,
Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court 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.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN
DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR VMRDA)
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SOMISETTY GANESH BABU (SC
For VUDA and MUDA)
Counsel for the Respondent No.4; SRI V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P RAJKUMAR
The Court made the following:
APHC010282782025
SMB 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 1 j S/0 RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, occ BUSINESS, R/0 RLOT NO.97 r
PADMAVATHINAGAR, 1ST LINE DHARMAPURI » ROAD
VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2.CHOPPA PRABHAKARA REDDY ) j S/0 VENKATA SUBBA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0
H.NO.8-3-979/1246 j .
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.^^^^^^^^ 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/0 LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, D.NO.50-50-33/3, 1ST FLOOR,
J.R.PIAZA, SEETHAMMADHARA. GURUDWAR JUNCTION^
NH5ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM.
5.GATTAMANENI SATYANARAYANA, S/0 SAMBASIVA RAO, -
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO.308, A-BLOCK,
SATYAKALYANI APARTMENTS. VEMULAVALASA,
ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
II2II
WP.No.14280of2025 ,
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/Permissio n
vide bearing L.P.No.lO/2025/1167A/MRDA/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
lA 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
10/2025/1167A/MRDA/DPMS dated 10.06.2025 issued by the
Respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to
pass such
lA 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/IP, 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
lA 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
lA 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
lA 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 MUNCIPALADMN URBAN DEV
2. P RAJ KUMAR
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. 10/2025/1167A/MRDA/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 4'*^ respondent also owns land admeasuring Ac.9.32 cents in Sy.No.268/2, 3P, 4, 5P. 6P, 276/3.P, 13P, 14, 15, 16, 17P, 18P, 277/IP, 2P and 4P. The land of the petitioner and the land of the 4'^^ respondent share a common boundary line.
3. It is submitted that the 4"" 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 2"^^ respondent nd seeking indulgence of the 2 respondent addressing the blockage of internal road access by the 4'^ respondent.
4. The 2"^^ respondent issued a shortfall notice on 04.04.2025 to the 4'^ respondent calling upon the 4*^ 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 4*^ respondent by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 4^*^ 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 2^^ 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 4'^ respondent has mislead the 2""^ respondent by projecting that the land on the eastern side of the 4'^ respondent was sold to third parties, and that there IS a private property of a third party between the petitioner's property and the 4"' respondent's property. The respondent has while disposing off the representation of the petitioner observed that the layout development permission issued to the 4^'^ respondent IS in accordance with the road circulation pattern.
8. It is submitted that the 4'^ 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. inn WP.No.14280 of 2025 State of Haryana and another\ 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 others^, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 28 as follows ;
28. "/t 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 4 respondent. As such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside as the layout permission granted to the 4*^ 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 4'^ respondent submits that the layout ' 2011 RCDRCIVILSC4 669 ^ 1992 SCALE 3 138 //8// WP.No. 14280 of 2025 permission granted to the 4*'' 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 4*^ respondent has executed agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of the 5*^ 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 4**^ 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 5'^ 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 2^^ 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 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 4^'" 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 others^, ^(1976) 1 see 671 //10// WP.No.14280of 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 2"'^ 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 4*'^ respondent attended the hearing and the 4**^ respondent and the petitioner have shown the layout plans and only after th examining them it was found that the layout application of 4 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 2"'^ respondent and consequent layout approval/permission dated 10.06.2025 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable etq..
//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 2"^^ 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 2"^^ respondent has issued notice to the 4"^ respondent and the petitioner for conducting a hearing. A hearing was conducted which was attended by the petitioner and the 4*^ respondent, documents were furnished by both the petitioner and the 4""
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 2'"'^ respondent.
23. Grant of layout in favour of 4'^ respondent by the 2'"'^ respondent is after verifying the plans and documents which is well within the power of the 2'^'^ 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 4*'' 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 4'^ 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 5*'' 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 4*^^ 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 1®* 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 S'*"
respondent is bifurcating the land of the petitioner and the 4*^ respondent.
28. The petitioner and the 4*'' respondent are in the same real-estate business and the proposed layout of the petitioner and the approved layout of the 4^^ respondent are distinct and different and the property standing on the name of the 5*^ respondent demarcates and bifurcates the two properties. There is no force in the contention that the petitioner's property is abutting the 4^^ 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 4'^ 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 anv. shall stand closed.
Sd/- M SURYANADHA REDDY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRI. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV, Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
3. One CC to SRI. P RAJKUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to SRI. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR , Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to SRI. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU, (SC For VUDA and MUDA), Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to SRI. A.S.C. BOSE, (SC For VMRDA), Advocate [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC]
7. Two CD Copies NM HIGH COURT DATED:17/10/2025 ORDER WP NO. 14280 OF 2025 g 2 li OCT 2025 )f <^V>Current DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS