APHC010452112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1046 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-34 [3584] Durbesula Hussain ...Appellant Vs. Mohammad Kalasha Malini and others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 15th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: MR.JAYANTI S C SEKHAR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): MR.GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR, (FOR R-1); GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP (FOR R-2); MR.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC, (FOR R3&R4) *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present intra-Court appeal is preferred assailing the order, dated 30.07.2026, in W.P.No.21146 of 2026, whereby learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition. 2. Appellant claims to have made a complaint before 3rd respondent that 1st respondent/writ petitioner has been making constructions in deviation of the building permission, dated 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1046 of 2026 03.11.2025, further, that though 1st respondent had only 175 sq. yards, she secured permission/approval over 200 sq. yards. Based on said complaint, respondents 3 and 4 issued notice, dated 18.07.2026, under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), pointing out deviation, and accordingly, called for explanation. In response, 1st respondent/writ petitioner submitted explanation, dated 22.07.2026, denying deviation of setbacks. In those circumstances, 1st respondent preferred writ petition challenging the notice, dated 18.07.2026, and proposed action of respondents in trying to demolish the structures. 3. The learned Single Judge disposed the said writ petition at admission stage, leaving it open to the writ petitioner to submit a fresh reply to the show-cause notice within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and thereafter, the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity, and till such time, not to interfere with the ongoing construction activity. 4. Heard Mr.Jayanti S. C. Sekhar, learned counsel for appellant; Mr.Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for 1st respondent/writ 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1046 of 2026 petitioner and Mr.S.V.S.S. Sivaram, learned Standing Counsel for VMC, appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition at admission stage without even issuing notice and affording opportunity to put forth the case, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that the writ petitioner had secured building permission showing the extent of land as 200 sq. yards, though on ground he only had only 175 sq. yards, thus, the very grant of building permission was illegal. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for VMC appearing for respondents 3 and 4, submitted that in pursuance to the directions of learned Single Judge, writ petitioner submitted reply, dated 08.08.2026, thereafter, 4th respondent herein issued notice, dated 27.08.2026, confirming the show-cause notice, and writ petitioner was instructed to remove the deviation and unauthorized construction to bring the same in conformity with the approved plan within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, otherwise, necessary action would be initiated for removal of the illegal constructions so made in accordance with law. He further submitted that as there is no action forthcoming thereafter, the Corporation is contemplating to issue final notice under 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1046 of 2026 Section 636 of the Act for proceeding with demolition of the illegal constructions. 7. Copy of the notice, dated 27.08.2026, is taken on record subject to just exceptions. 8. Having considered the submissions made above, it transpires that after the order of learned Single Judge, respondents 3 and 4 have already passed orders confirming the show-cause notice. As can be seen from the said confirmation order, it is concluded that writ petitioner has made constructions in deviation of the approved plan, thus, she has been instructed to remove the illegal constructions within 7 days, as otherwise, informed that necessary action would be initiated for removal of such illegal constructions. The substantive complaint of appellant since is that the writ petitioner was making constructions in deviation of sanctioned plan, the same thus stands redressed. 9. Insofar as the other submission that the very issuance of building permission was illegal, inasmuch as the writ petitioner did not possess 200 sq. yards on ground, as there is no challenge to the grant of building permission, we refrain from entering into the said issue. 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1046 of 2026 10. Having said that, as the deviations pointed out and confirmed, vide confirmation notice, dated 27.08.2026, are clear-cut violations, the respondents are directed to take appropriate further steps to ensure that the constructions are strictly in terms of the approved plan. 11. With the aforesaid observation, writ appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs