APHC010630442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1243 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-29 [3552] D. Obulesu @ Pedda Obulesu ...Appellant Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. G. R. Sudhakar appearing vice Mr. V. Vinod K Reddy Advocates for Respondents: GP for Home, Mr. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 25th November, 2025. P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2025, passed in W.P.No.30598 of 2025. 2. The only issue which was contented before us today was that unofficial respondent Nos.9 to 14 were raising construction over a plot of land, which is the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner-appellant herein and the said respondents in a Civil Court, and that during the pendency of the civil suit, without obtaining requisite permission from the Municipality, the unofficial respondents are raising construction with the aid and help of the police authorities, who are figuring as respondent Nos.1 to 7 in the present case. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the B.Kothakota Municipality- respondent No.8, on instructions, states that action has been taken against 2 HCJ & CGRJ WA_1243_2025 the unofficial respondents under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, inasmuch as a Notice under Section 228(1) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, has since been issued, which was challenged by the noticees before the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is stated that although copy of the judgment and order is not available with the counsel for the Municipality, yet to his knowledge he states that the petitioner in that petition has been permitted to approach the Municipality for obtaining permission. It is however not denied that unofficial respondents are continuing to go ahead with the construction as on date. 4. In our opinion, the Municipality cannot permit the construction to go on without a formal sanction accorded by them for raising such a construction. 5. We therefore direct the B.Kothakota Municipality-respondent No.8, to ensure that no construction is raised on site, till the issue with regard to the building permission is resolved by the Municipality, on an application having been filed by the unofficial respondents in that regard. 6. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN