APHC010759522018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36710 of 2018 Bench Sr.No:-38 [3584] Peram Venkata Gopal Reddy ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 22nd July 2026 Present: Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s): MR. V BALRAM, MR.S. KRISHNA REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): SHANTI PRASAD SINGALURI SC For UDA CHITTOOR,KADAPA,KURNOOL,ANP,PUTTAPARTHI, MR. M SRIKANTH, (for R-5); GP FOR REVENUE (AP), Mr. Gudapati Lakshminarayana, SC for Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region, GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) *** ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) This writ petition came to be preferred questioning the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in taking out the unauthorised constructions made by 5th respondent despite passing of final orders directing removal of illegal constructions. 2. This Court passed interim order, dated 23.10.2018, directing that there shall not be any further construction activity with regard to building 2 HCJ & CGR, J. WP No.36710 of 2018 in question without permission from this Court and also that the official respondents shall not order regularisation or permit any construction activity in relation to the structure in question. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that 5th respondent is a builder and had constructed ground plus three floors over the subject property within the limits of Puttaparthy Nagar Panchayat, which is without any building permission. The 2nd respondent is stated to have issued notice, dated 28.07.2010, to 5th respondent to remove the unauthorised constructions, as the same was constructed without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. Since there was no response to the said show-cause notice, it is stated that a further show- cause notice, dated 10.12.2010, has been issued under Section 42(1) of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, “the A.P. UA (D) Act”). Even thereafter, it appears the 5th respondent has not submitted any explanation, therefore, final notice came to be issued on 12.10.2011, and the 5th respondent was directed to remove the illegal constructions within one week. Despite the same, as no further action was forthcoming, petitioner chose to file present writ petition. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 filed their respective counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by 2nd respondent, it has been stated that 5th respondent never made any application for approval of building 3 HCJ & CGR, J. WP No.36710 of 2018 permission. The only application that was received by 2nd respondent was building regularisation application in the year 2019 seeking regularisation of the constructions, which was at a much later stage, at any rate, the 2nd respondent stated to have rejected the same, as there was specific direction from this Court. It is further stated that presently the powers of 2nd respondent have now been delegated to 3rd respondent to initiate any further action with regard to unauthorised constructions. 5. Whereas, 3rd respondent in its counter-affidavit stated that in pursuance to the representation, dated 05.04.2024, made by the writ petitioner seeking cancellation of No Objection Certificate issued by the Airport Authority, the issue has already been highlighted with the said Airport Authority for cancellation, which is under consideration. Further, in pursuance to the communication, dated 01.03.2025, from the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, instructing to take action regarding removal of unauthorised construction, having regard to the delegation of powers on it, notice, dated 17.03.2025, has been issued under Section 228(1) & (2) r/w. Sections 209 and 212 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and Section 89(1) & (2) r/w. Sections 82, 90(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, calling upon 5th respondent to 4 HCJ & CGR, J. WP No.36710 of 2018 remove the same forthwith. The 5th respondent, in turn, had submitted explanation, vide letter, dated 23.02.2025, and the same is pending at that stage. 6. The 5th respondent in the counter-affidavit took a specific stand that he made an application, dated 10.03.2010, to the 2nd respondent seeking permission for construction of ground plus three floors, however, the same was not acted upon within the prescribed period. That, in view of Section 14(5) of the A.P. UA (D) Act, in case the development authority does not respond to the application within the time specified therein, the same amounts to deemed permission, therefore, he had gone ahead with the construction of the building. Because of the initiation of present case, the constructions were to be stopped midway. Further, the Vice-Chairman of 2nd respondent, who was instrumental and coming in the way of the building permission, was eventually trapped by ACB and he came to be prosecuted for accepting bribe while according sanctions to the building plans and thereafter, convicted. At any rate, the question as to whether 5th respondent had valid building permission or not, by virtue of application of Section 14(5) of the A.P. UA (D) Act, had not been considered or decided by any of the authorities so far. 5 HCJ & CGR, J. WP No.36710 of 2018 7. We have heard Mr.S. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Shanti Prasad Singaluri, learned Standing Counsel for PUDA, appearing for 2nd respondent; Mr.Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for 3rd respondent and Mr.M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent. 8. The entire focus of controversy in the present case revolves around the issue as to whether the claim of 5th respondent that he had valid building permission in view of the deeming provision under Section 14(5) of the A.P. UA (D) Act is justified and merits acceptance, but, unfortunately, respondents 2 and 3, who are supposed to decide the said issue, have not gone into the said issue at all, rather, they were merely proceeding on the assumption that constructions were made without valid building permission and proposed to demolish the same, and in that direction multiple notices came to be issued. 9. In order to decide as to whether there is a deemed permission or not, it requires appreciation of the factual matrix and such exercise has to be undertaken only by respondents 2 and 3. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that unless the aforesaid issue is decided, question of proceeding with 6 HCJ & CGR, J. WP No.36710 of 2018 demolition of structures by treating the same to be unauthorised does not arise. 11. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing respondents 2 and 3 to decide the issue as to whether 5th respondent is entitled to claim deemed permission in pursuance to the application, dated 10.03.2010, qua Section 14(5) of the A.P. UA (D) Act, and in the process it is needless to say that respondents 2 and 3 shall hear both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent by providing due opportunity of hearing, and thereafter, pass appropriate speaking orders, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the outcome of such exercise, if is adverse to any of the parties, it is open for them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Further, it is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. cs