Madugula Krishna Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5029 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                   W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

ORDER:

As both the writ petitions arise out of the same issues and facts,

they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Smt. V. Sailaja, learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.17688 of 2021; Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners in W.P.No.26474 of 2021; learned Government Pleader

for Panchayat Raj appearing for the official respondents and Sri I. Koti

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.17688 of 2021 is being referred to

as the petitioner and the petitioner in W.P.No.26474 of 2021 is referred to

as the complainant, for the sake of convenience.

4. The petitioner, who is said to be the owner of a large extent

of land in Sy.No.234/1 & 2 of Vandrangi Village, G. Singdam Mandal,

Srikakulam District, has constructed a commercial building consisting of

shops. This structure is sought to be demolished by the Vandrangi Gram

Panchayat on the ground that the said building has been constructed

without obtaining necessary permissions. The complainant, who claims to

be a person residing in the neighbourhood of the building, gave

complaints against the said construction made by the petitioner and

approached this Court for a direction to the Gram Panchayat and other

authorities to demolish the building of the petitioner as a provisional order

of demolition, dated 01.09.2021, had been passed and the said order of

demolition is not being implemented. It is also the case of the 2 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

complainant that he had given complaints even while the building was

being constructed.

5. The facts, according to the petitioner, have been set out in

the list of chronological events given by the petitioner. The same are

being set out herein:

27.01.2020 Application made to grant permission for construction of row of shops in Ac.0.22 cents at Sy.Nos.234/1 & 2 of Vandrangi Village vide A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules 2002.

Vide Rule 26, executive authority shall refuse permission within 30 days and where no orders are communicated it shall be deemed to have been permitted and the owner can proceed with the construction.

18.03.2020 The Gram Panchayat failed to take action on the application within the prescribed time, and the petitioner submitted a representation intimating that he is proceeding with the construction, vide the plan.

Petitioner proceeded and completed the construction vide the plan and put the tenants in possession of the respective shops.

18.06.2020 Vandrangi Panchayat allegedly returned the proposals directing to submit the documents in support of his right and title over the property.

01.10.2020 G.O.Ms.No.179 issuing orders giving guidelines for processing building permission online.

17.12.2020 Vandrangi Panchayat addressed a letter to the petitioner directing to submit the application online giving website apdpms.ap.gov.in for the first time.

19.04.2021 Appeal presented before the District Panchayat Officer, Srikakulam complaining about the attitude of the Panchayat Secretary and other officials, requesting to clear obstacles.

3 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

17.08.2021 Petitioner filed W.P.No.17688 of 2021 to declare the order dated 17.12.2020 returning the building application daged 27.01.2020 directing to apply SUDA vide G.O.Ms.No.179 since it is only prospective and the application dated 27.01.2020 shall be considered vide the Rules 2002 only. 24.08.2021 This Hon‟ble Court passed an order in I.A.No.1/2021 to consider the application dated 27.01.2020 within 10 days and pass appropriate orders.

11.10.2021 Divisional Panchayat Officer submitted a report to the District Panchayat Officer.

DLPO referred all proceedings and arrived at conclusion at penultimate para that since Panchayat Secretary has not cooperated and by eclipse of time, the approval is deemed to have been granted.

08.11.2021 The petitioner filed W.P.No.26474 of 2021 to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in taking appropriate for demolishing alleged illegal construction and restrain the respondent Nos.7 and 8 in giving electricity connection and power supply and direct respondent Nos.2 to 6 to demolish the construction made by respondent No.9

6. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner took up

construction of the building, which was a shopping complex of 27 rooms,

without obtaining any building permission. The complainant, who is said

to be residing opposite the construction, filed a representation before the

Gram Panchayat on 15.09.2021, on the basis of the material obtained by

the complainant that the said illegal construction made by the petitioner

requires to be demolished with an additional ground of poor quality of

material used by the petitioner. As no action was being taken by the

official respondents, the complainant approached this Court by way of

W.P.No.26474 of 2021.

4 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

7. Both sides have filed voluminous pleadings and material to

buttress their case. This Court does not propose to deal with each and

every document filed by the respective parties to this litigation, as such a

course of action would require this Court to evaluate evidence on either

side and give findings of fact in the manner of a civil Court. It would

suffice, for the purpose of this writ petition, to take up the main issues

and decide the matter on the basis of the main issues.

8. The essential case on either side is as follows:

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an

application for building permission for construction of a row of shops over

an extent of Ac.0.22 cents, on 27.01.2020, under the A.P. Gram

Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules 2002 (for short

„Layout and Building Rules), before the Gram panchayat, Vandrangi. Rule

26 of the said Layout and Building Rules require the executive authority to

either refuse the building permission or seek further clarifications, within

30 days of receipt of the said building application. In the event of the

executing authority not communicating any decision or requirement,

within the aforesaid 30 days, there would be a deemed permission to go

ahead with the construction of the building. As no communication was

received from the Gram Panchayat within 30 days from 27.01.2020, the

petitioner had taken up construction of the shops and the Gram

Panchayat can, at best, seek to take action against the petitioner only in

the event of the said construction being found to be violative of any of the

Layout and Building Rules in force. It is the contention of the petitioner

that subsequent applications made by the petitioner and communications

received from the Gram Panchayat relating to various alleged deficiencies

would not derogate the fact that there is deemed permission for the 5 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

petitioner to make constructions. On that basis, the petitioner contends

that steps being taken by the Gram Panchayat to demolish the building

constructed by the petitioner and the steps being taken for disconnecting

the power supply given to the petitioner are arbitrary and not supported

by law.

9. The case of the Gram Panchayat as well as the complainant

is that the petitioner had never made any application on 27.01.2020. The

first application made by the petitioner for building permission was on

12.06.2020, which was returned as it was found defective. The petitioner

again approached the Gram Panchayat on 15.06.2020 with the building

application and the same was again returned on 18.06.2020 on the

ground that the application was incomplete and requisite property

documents were not enclosed. The petitioner submitted a revised plan on

21.08.2020, which was returned for the same reasons on 26.08.2020. At

that stage, the petitioner got a legal notice dated 19.09.2020 issued to the

Gram Panchayat stating that the building permission was being

unreasonably withheld. The Gram Panchayat replied to this notice on

30.09.2020 stating that the application of the petitioner was defective and

could not be acted upon. Thereafter the petitioner again approached the

Gram Panchayat on 09.11.2020 with the same documents due to which

the application was refused under covering letter dated 17.12.2020. The

Gram Panchayat also stated in the said covering letter that on account of

G.O.Ms.No.179, Municipal Administration and Urban Development

Department, dated 01.10.2020, building permission would have to be

obtained from Srikakulam Urban Development Authority (SUDA) and not

the Gram Panchayat.

6 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

10. As the petitioner had constructed the structure without

obtaining necessary building permission, the Gram Panchayat issued

notices dated 02.03.2021 and 23.03.2021 directing the petitioner to stop

the construction. The Gram Panchayat also addressed a letter dated

23.03.2021 and another letter dated 30.03.2021 to SUDA about the illegal

construction being made by the petitioner. The SUDA by letter dated

06.04.2021 (which is said to have been received on 10.06.2021) directed

the Gram Panchayat to take necessary action on the unauthorised

construction. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat issued a notice dated

23.08.2021 to which there was no reply. Subsequently, a provisional order

dated 01.09.2021 was issued, directing the petitioner to remove the

building, which was constructed without permission. At that stage, the

petitioner filed a representation dated 08.09.2021. A final order dated

22.11.2021 was issued after taking into account the representation of the

petitioner. In this final order, the provisional order dated 01.09.2021 was

confirmed and the petitioner was directed to remove the illegal

construction, within three weeks.

11. On the question of the relevant authority, before whom, the

building permission has to be obtained, it is the case of the complainant

that such a building permission had to be obtained from SUDA or in the

alternative from Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development

Authority (VMRDA). Reliance is placed upon G.O.Ms.No.119, MA & UD

Department dated 28.03.2017, G.O.Ms.No.443 MA & UD Department

dated 18.12.2017, G.O.Ms.No.302 MA & UD Department dated

05.09.2018, G.O.Ms.No.63 MA & UD Department dated 12.02.2019 and

G.O.Ms.No.179 MA & UD Department 01.10.2020.

7 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

12. As far as W.P.No.26474 of 2021 is concerned, Sri V.S.R.

Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in

W.P.No.17688 of 2021, would submit that the complainant/writ petitioner

in W.P.No.26474 of 2021 is a busy body, who has been set up by the

Gram Panchayat for extraneous reasons and that he has no locus to file

the present writ petition. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyylu would also submit that the

writ petitioner in W.P.No.26474 of 2021 cannot be a person aggrieved and

consequently cannot maintain the writ petition. He relies upon the

judgments in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji

Bashir Ahmed and ors.,1 (paragraphs 33, 36, and 38) and I. Venkat

Rao vs. Municipal Corporation of Warangal2 (paragraph No.6).

Various other contentions have also been raised against the complainant

on account of which, it is contended that the writ petition filed by the

complainant is not maintainable.

13. The passage in paragraph No.6 in the judgement of the

erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh, in I. Venkat Rao vs. Municipal

Corporation of Warangal, at page 413, which is extracted below, sets

out the law in this regard:

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bankatlal Mandhani. He vehemently contended that as held by this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 (2) ALD 115, any member of a public can approach this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek appropriate reliefs. It is well settled that a neighbour who is aggrieved by the construction allegedly in contravention of the building plan has no locus standi to question the same in a public law remedy. If the neighbour is aggrieved with reference to the deprivation of corporeal

AIR 1976 SC 578

1999 SCC OnLine AP 705 : 2000 (2) ALD 411 : (2000) 1 ALD (Cri) 374 8 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

rights as well as incorporeal rights - deprivation of property, violation of right to privacy etc., the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for declaration of easementary rights and consequential injunction. The reasons are two. In either way, whether a person is deprived of the property due to the encroachment or a person's right to privacy is violated by virtue of illegal constructions preventing free light and air into the house; these are matters for elaborate evidence.

This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution decides the matters based on affidavits and it is well neigh impossible to dwell into questions of fact which are in serious dispute. Therefore, the judgment of this Court relied on by Sri Mandhani which categorically states that the right of the public to approach the Court under Article 226 is acceded, cannot be extended where a private person is aggrieved by the actions of another private person that too when no proper material is placed before the Court that the construction made is grossly subverting the public interest. As held by the Supreme Court in Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma, (1989) 2 SCC 495 : AIR 1989 SC 860, all illegal constructions need not be demolished. The acid test to be applied is whether illegal constructions if any grossly subvert public interest and grossly contrary to the public interest. In the said case, the Supreme Court even regularised huge extent of floor space which was admittedly contrary to FSI Regulations. In this connection, it is useful to extract the following passage from the above judgment:

"...... in the absence of any evidence of public safety being in any manner endangered or the public or a section of the public being in any manner inconvenienced by reason of the construction of the building, whatever may be the personal grievance of the 1st respondent, the High Court was not justified, at the instance of the 1st respondent claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any part of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder. See the principles stated by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. in Ramsharan 9 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, (1988) 2 Scale 1399 : 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251 : AIR 1989 SC 549, and by Khalid, J., in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295 : AIR 1987 SC 1109."

14. In the present case, the Complainant except stating that the

construction of building is not in accordance with law and that there is a

danger of collapse of the building due to usage of sub-standard material,

has not made out any case of violation of his rights. This Court finds

substantial merit in the contentions raised by Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu and

would hold, on the basis of the judgments cited by him, that

W.P.No.26474 of 2021 would have to be rejected.

15. The question that would still remain before this Court is

whether the construction of shops by the petitioner are in accordance with

the law and on the basis of the permission granted by the appropriate

authority, whether express or deemed.

16. The petitioner contends that the building application given

by the petitioner on 27.01.2020 gives deemed permission to the petitioner

for making constructions as the petitioner did not receive any

communication from the Gram Panchayat on this score.

17. The contention of the Gram Panchayat on this count is, no

such application is received by the Gram Panchayat on 27.01.2020 and

consequently, there was no deemed permission. The petitioner relies upon

the report dated 11.10.2021 submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer

to the District Panchayat Officer, Srikakulam in which there is a finding by

the Divisional Panchayat Officer that the building application dated

27.01.2020 was received by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat on that

day. The basis for this finding is that a Xerox copy of the receipt given by 10 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat had been placed before the

Divisional Panchayat Officer by the petitioner.

18. This receipt is vehemently opposed by Sri I. Koti Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, who submits that the

Secretary of the Gram Panchayat had not issued any such receipt. He

would submit that the fact that the petitioner has not produced the

alleged original of the Xerox copy filed before the Divisional Panchayat

Officer, would be sufficient to show that the document is a created

document.

19. This Court, to ascertain the facts, had sought for the files of

the Divisional Panchayat Officer and District Panchayat Officer. Both the

files have been produced before this Court. A perusal of the file of the

Divisional Panchayat Officer would show that there is a Xerox copy of the

receipt that is said to have been signed by the Secretary of the Gram

Panchayat. However, the question, whether the said Xerox copy has been

obtained from a genuine receipt issued by the secretary of the gram

panchayath still remains.

20. This Court does not intend to go into this question of fact as

to whether the Xerox copy produced by the petitioner before the

Divisional Panchayat Officer was a genuine original receipt or not. This

Court declines to go into this question for two reasons. Firstly, the

question whether the Xerox copy of the receipt is a copy of a genuine

original or not requires a complicated question of fact to be decided on

the basis of the material placed before this Court. Such a course of action

would not be advisable or appropriate under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Secondly, the said issue can be resolved on the

basis of the jurisdiction or authority of the Gram Panchayat to issue such 11 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

building permission. Even though, the writ petition filed by the

complainant is being dismissed, the provisions of law pointed out by the

complainant, cannot be ignored.

21. The A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and

Building) Rules, 2002 had been framed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act,

1994. Subsequently, the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development

Authorities Act, 2016 was brought into force with effect from 08.02.2016.

Under this Act, the Government is entitled to constitute Metropolitan

Region Development Authorities, after which the said Act would apply to

the area over which a Development Authority had been set up and

consequently, the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development

Authorities Act, 2016 would override the Panchayath Raj Act and the rules

made thereunder would not be applicable. On 05.09.2018 the

Government issued G.O.Ms.No.301 dissolving Visakhapatnam Urban

Development Authority with effect from 05.09.2018. The Government also

issued G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 05.09.2018 notifying the Visakhapatnam

Metropolitan Region. In this G.O., certain villages have been included in

the Metropolitan Region. Vandrangi village was also included in the

Metropolitan Region in this G.O. Subsequently, the Government issued

G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 12.02.2019 excluding certain urban local bodies and

villages from Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority

for including the same in Srikakulam Urban Development Authority. The

Government, on the same day, issued G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 12.02.2019

including all the areas excluded from VMRD into SUDA. Vandrangi village

was one of the villages included in SUDA area.

22. In a parallel development, the Government had issued

G.O.Ms.No.443 dated 18.12.2017 under Section 115(2) of the A.P.

12 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016

delegating powers conferred under the said Act to the urban local bodies

and Gram Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of urban authorities for

grant of building permission under Section 82 of A.P. Metropolitan Region

and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016. Under this delegation of

power, the Gram Panchayats were delegated the power to grant building

permissions for residential buildings up to 300 sq. mts. plot area and 10

meters height. All other categories were retained with the Urban

Development Authority. This would mean that by 27.01.2020, which is the

disputed date of first application by the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat

did not have authority to grant any building permission for a commercial

building.

23. The Government had also issued G.O.Ms.No.119 dated

28.03.2017 directing that the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 would apply to all

building activities in the areas falling in Gram Panchayats covered in the

master plan/general town planning schemes or any areas falling under

any Metropolitan Region Development Authority. By virtue of these G.Os.,

it is clear that by 27.01.2020 the Gram Panchayat did not have any

authority to grant any building permission nor was the deeming provision,

under the A.P. Building Rules, available to the petitioner to claim that he

had deemed permission for construction of the shops which would amount

to a commercial building.

24. In the circumstances, without going into the question

whether the petitioner had filed an application for building permission on

27.01.2020 or not, it would have to be held that even if such an

application had been filed on 27.01.2020, the said application was filed

before the wrong authority and the deeming provision claimed by the 13 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

petitioner under the Layout and Building Rules, 2002 would not be

available to the petitioner as the Rules were inapplicable even by

27.01.2020.

25. The construction made by the petitioner would have to be

treated as an unauthorised construction. It would also have to be

remembered that both the petitioner and the respondent gram

panchayath, till 17.12.2020, had proceeded on the basis that the Gram

panchayath is the appropriate authority to grant building permission,

when the Gram Panchayath, for the first time, pointed out that the

petitioner would have to approach, the Srikakulam Urban Development

Authority. In this regard, certain leeway would have to be granted to the

Petitioner.

26. Further, the Gram Panchayat has specifically stated, in its

counters, both in W.P.No.26474 of 2021 and W.P.No.17688 of 2021 that

provisional order of demolition dated 01.09.2021 and final order of

demolition dated 22.11.2021 had been passed. However, the petitioner

did not take any steps to challenge either of these orders. However, an

application to amend the prayer in the writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner so as to challenge the provisional order of demolition, dated

01.09.2021 and final order of demolition dated 22.11.2021. This

application has been filed after the matters had been heard and reserved

for consideration, and on the date when the writs were posted for

pronouncement of judgement. These applications have been allowed by

way of separate orders.

27. Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu would submit that it is not mandatory

for every unauthorised building to be demolished. He relies on the

judgements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Syed Muzaffar Ali and 14 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

Ors., vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi3; Rajatha Enterprises vs.

S.K. Sharma and Ors.,4 and A judgement of a learned Single Judge of

the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.23934 of 2009

dated 06.06.2012 to contend that every unauthorised construction need

not be demolished and such orders of demolition should be given only in

special circumstances.

28. In Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma, (1989) 2 SCC

495 at page 503, the Hon'ble Supreme court had held as follows:

21. We have perused the records and considered the arguments on both sides. We are not satisfied that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were justified in permitting and much less directing the demolition of the sixth floor. On the facts found, there is neither justice nor equity in authorising the demolition. The total site area being 15,517 sq ft, as found by the High Court, and the permissible FAR in relation to the site area being 38,792 sq ft, as against the determined area of 45,974 odd sq ft, the excess FAR is only 7182 sq ft When an area of 4500 sq ft occupied by the school is excluded from the excess area of 7182 sq ft by reason of the school having vested in the Government upon the completion of the building, the actual excess area in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant is only 2682 sq ft. The permissible limit of compounding being 5 per cent of the permissible FAR, which works out to 1940 sq ft, the actual area of deviation outside the permissible compounding limit seems to be not larger than 742 sq ft. In the circumstances, in the light of what the Commissioner says about the practice of the Corporation in regard to the commencement certificate and in the absence of any evidence of public safety being in any manner endangered or the public or a section of the public being in any

1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 426

AIR 1989 SC 860 15 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

manner inconvenienced by reason of the construction of the building, whatever may be the personal grievance of Respondent 1, the High Court was not justified, at the instance of Respondent 1 claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any part of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder. See the principle stated by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India [1989 Supp (1) SCC 251 : AIR 1989 SC 549] and by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal [(1987) 2 SCC 295] . Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court insofar as it permits or directs the demolition of the sixth floor and affirm the rest of the order. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. We make no order as to costs.

SLP (C) No. 5562 of 1988

29. In Syed Muzaffar Ali v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, 1995

Supp (4) SCC 426, the Hon‟ble Supreme court had held as follows:

4. However, it is to be pointed out that the mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the structure. There are cases and cases of such unauthorised constructions. Some are amenable to compounding and some may not be. There may be cases of grave and serious breaches of the licensing provisions or building regulations that may call for the extreme step of demolition.

5. These are matters for the authorities to consider at the appropriate time having regard to nature of the transgressions. It is open to the petitioners to move the authorities for such relief as may be available to them at law. The petitioners may, if so advised, file a plan indicating the nature and extent of the unauthorised constructions carried out, and seek regularisation, if such regularisation is permissible. The dismissal of the petitions will not stand in the way of the authorities examining and 16 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

granting such relief as the petitioners may be entitled to under law. The petitioners may move the authorities in this behalf within one week for such compounding or regularisation and also for stay of demolition pending consideration of their prayer. During the period of one week from today, however, no demolition shall be made.

30. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had also indicated certain

guidelines in exercise of such discretion. A reading of the said judgments

would also make it clear that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had not set out

an exhaustive set of guidelines.

31. In the present case, as the construction made by the

petitioner may be in compliance with the setbacks and other requirements

of the building laws in force, an order of demolition may not be an

appropriate order. However, Sri I. Koti Reddy, the learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat submits that the petitioner, in

blatant disregard of the instructions given by the authorities from time to

time, to desist from further construction, had gone ahead with the

construction of the building and started accusing the authorities of bias

and prejudice against the petitioner. He would submit that permitting such

a blatant disregard for the requirements of the applicable building laws,

would result in further unauthorised constructions taking place by other

persons.

32. In view of the submissions of Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, this Court does not find any reason

to set aside the impugned provisional orders of demolition and

confirmation order of demolition. The prayer of the petitioner to this

extent would have to fail.

17 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

33. The learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P.

in its order dated 06.06.2012 in W.P.No.23934 of 2009 had held that the

petitioner, in that case, shall be entitled to file an application under

Section 455-A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act for

regularisation of construction. In the present case, a similar provision is

available to the petitioner under Section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan

Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, which empowers

the Metropolitan Commissioner or Vice- Chairman to regularise

constructions made without building permissions, subject to the conditions

contained in the said provision.

34. Consequently, W.P. No. 26474 of 2021 is dismissed and

W.P.No.17688 of 2021 is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to

avail of the remedy available under Section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan

Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 within a period of

two weeks from today. Any application filed by the petitioner, in this

regard, would be considered and disposed of by the said authority, in

accordance with law and the Gram Panchayath shall not take any action

against the petitioner till such an application is disposed of. The

Respondents shall then act in accordance with the decision taken in the

application filed under section 90-A of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and

Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016.

35. In the event of the petitioner failing to avail this remedy

within the stipulated time, it would be open to the respondent Gram

Panchayath to take further action in accordance with law. The record files

produced by the learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj, shall be

returned to him. There shall be no order as to costs.

18 RRR,J W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021

36. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

5th August, 2022 Js.

                          19                             RRR,J
                                W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




           W.P.Nos.17688 & 26474 of 2021




                  5th August, 2022
Js.