KONERU VANI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- APMC Act, 1955 ss. 417, 423, 428
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date:06.01.2026 Pmk ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N //5// WP.No.28039 of 2025 217 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.28039…
Judgment
Cause title
1. KONERU VANI, , W/O RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED 74 YEARS, OCC- RTD EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 54-13/5-24A, A.V.R. TOWERS, P.NO.114, OPP TO SBI COLONY, MAHANADU ROAD, SRINIVASA NAGAR BANK COLONY, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR KRISHNA DISTRICT. AND ...PETITIONER
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GIMTUR DISTRICT. IS PRINCIPAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DEPARTMENT,
2. VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA - 520001.
3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VIJAYAWADA.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, STATION HOUSE MASTER, PATAMATA POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA.
5. P SATISH, S/O LATE P. NAGESWARA RAO, R/O OPP. GURUDWAR, GURUNANAK COLONY, VIJA5RWADA, NTR KRISHNA 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 to pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or orders, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring in action on part of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in taking steps in pursuance of notice dated on 28.07.2025 to the unofficial respondent i.e. 5th respondent, who is //2// WP.No.28039 of 2025 the present owner of the premises bearing D.No.54-13/5-82, Plot No. 113, Srinivasa nagar Bank Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada restraining illegal demolition of the said building by the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to restrain the 5th respondent from proceeding with illegal demolition of the premises bearing D.no. 54-13/5-82, Plot No. 113, Srinivasa nagar Bank Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada without procedure established under Sec.417, 423 and 428 of APMC Act, 1955 and also direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to calculate the damages to the petitioner building bearing D.N0.54-13/5-24A situated on the north side of the above building which caused due to the illegal demolition of the 5th respondent building and pass 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 2nd and 3rd respondent to refrain the 5th respondent from proceeding with illegal demolition of bearing D.No.54-13/5-82, Plot No.130, Srinivasanagar Bank Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T V S KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA
2. GP FOR HOME
3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
4. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC The Court made the following: //3// WP.No.28039 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.28039 OF 2025
ORDER :
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in taking further steps in pursuance of notice dated
28.07.2025, whereby respondent No.5 was actively taking steps to demolish the old structure without obtaining any permission. This Court, vide order dated 10.10.2025, directed the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to ensure that respondent No.5 does not undertake any further steps for demolition without obtaining the necessary permission from respondent No.2.
Learned counsel appearing respondent No.5 submits respondent No.5 intends to obtain the necessary permission from respondent No.2 before undertaking any demolition or further construction.
Counter has been filed by respondent No.2 stating that respondent No.2 has appropriately issued notice directing respondent No.5 not to carry out any further demolition without obtaining the requisite permission.
It is further submitted that respondent No.5 has filed O.S.No.1384 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) seeking permanent injunction. The interim orders granted in the said suit were vacated and therefore respondent No.5 would have to obtain permission for undertaking demolition in accordance with law. //4// WP.No.28039 of 2025
Considering the above, and also considering the submissions of respondent No.5 that the 5th respondent intends to obtain necessary permissions before undertaking any demolition or construction on the land.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date:06.01.2026 Pmk ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N //5// WP.No.28039 of 2025 217 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.28039 of 2025 Dated 06.01.2026 Pmk
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; APMC Act, 1955 — ss. 417, 423, 428; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 06 Jan 2026. The bench was HARINATH N.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.