APHC010000072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3552] G. Sudhakar ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, Mr.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY, GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 6th January 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) The unsuccessful writ petitioner preferred present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the order of the learned single Judge, passed in W.P.No.31316 of 2025, dated 19.12.2025, by which the writ petition came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant/writ petitioner owns a residential property at D.No.1/370-5, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa. Respondents 7 and 8 also own an 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 extent of Ac.0.08 cents in plot No.8, vide D.No.1/375, which is abutting to and western side of the appellant property. They have entered into joint development agreement with 9th respondent for the purpose of constructing residential apartment. The 4th respondent Corporation has accorded building permission, by order, dated 23.06.2025, permitting construction of stilt and four upper floors in an extent of 379.36 sq. meters plot area. The maximum height permitted was 18.20 meters with front side setback of 3 meters and 2 meters on all other three sides. The appellant having noticed certain deviations both in terms of very sanctioning of building permissions and as well as the constructions being undertaken, has made a complaint through public grievance redressal system in R.C.No. KDP202509222791, dated 06.10.2025. In pursuance to the same, the 4th respondent has issued provisional notice, dated 25.09.2025, under Sections 452 and 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), notifying deviations/violations in respect of the setbacks and the total built-up area and called upon the respondents 7 to 9 to submit explanations. Besides, petitioner also instituted the writ petition challenging the very grant of building permission in favour of 9th respondent developer to be contrary to the A.P. Building Rules, 2017. 3. Both official and unofficial respondents contested the writ petition by filing respective counter-affidavits and eventually, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the building 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 permission so granted was well within the ambit of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 and that there was no deviations as such in the grant of building permission. Assailing the same, present writ appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Mr.Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the appellant, and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; Mr.A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development; and Mr.Potham Vengala Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporations – Rayalaseema Area, appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in terms of A.P. Building Rules, 2017, in particular Rule 57, the maximum height that is permissible for any plot measuring between 400 to 500 sq. meters would be only 12 meters, and such plots should abut roads with minimum of 9 meter, as in the present case, the building permission that has been granted was for 18.2 meters, the same is clearly contrary to the aforesaid Rule. He further contended that even otherwise, the setbacks provided in the building permission were not adhered to and that there were clear deviations and when the same were pointed out, the 4th respondent merely issued provisional notice and has not taken any further action in regard to the same, which is clearly arbitrary and illegal. He contended that the 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 learned single Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid aspects in proper perspective, and therefore, calls for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Corporation tried to sustain the building permission by contending that the building permission was granted strictly following Rule 57 r/w. Rule 167 of the Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.4, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 09.01.2025, which inter alia prescribed maximum height of 18 meters from ground level, which included TDR floor for non-high rise buildings. The subject building which was sought to be constructed is permitted with height of 18.2 meters, of which, in terms of Rule 57(3), the stilt floor meant for parking needs to be excluded from the permissible height and even the basement also requires to be excluded and upon such exclusion, the height that has been permitted would be well within the norms under the Building Rules. Further, insofar as setback deviations were concerned, the Corporation has already issued a provisional notice, dated 25.09.2025, and necessary further action would be initiated accordingly. 7. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, who are constructing the residential apartment, also contended that the building permission was granted strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and height of the building as permitted under the plan has to be construed only after 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 exclusion of the stilt as envisaged under Rule 57(3) and also exclusion of the basement area, therefore, it cannot be said that the building permission was granted in deviation to the applicable rules. Rule 167 enables a TDR holder to raise additional two floors over and above the permissible limit, therefore, the 4th respondent has rightly accorded permission for one additional floor, which was subject to the height restriction as contemplated under the Rules, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 8. Perused the record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective counsels. 9. The construction that is sought to be made over the subject property admeasuring 379.39 sq. meters is no doubt for residential purposes. The appellant resides on western side of the subject property where construction is coming up, therefore, he naturally would have concern on the construction that is being made. Respondents 7 to 9 have secured building permission from 4th respondent vide Permit No.1013/0399/8/KAD/ ngp/2025, dated 23.06.2025. Perusal of the said building permit goes to show that construction was permitted for stilt plus four floors with front setback of 3 meters and the remaining three sides with 2 meters. The maximum height permitted was 18.20 meters with total constructed area of 1122.4 sq. meters. The main contention of the appellant is that the 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 height of the building as permitted in the building permit i.e. 18.20 meters was impermissible and contrary to the Rules. In order to demonstrate the same, appellant has tried to rely on Rule 57 of the Rules, which envisaged that the maximum permissible height of the building in a plot covering an extent of 400 to 500 sq. meters has been capped at 12 meters and even if assuming that the unofficial respondents were permitted an additional floor on account of securing TDRs, the further height that would be permitted would be maximum of 3 more meters which would come to 15 meters and but definitely not 18.20 meters. He further contended that as Rule 57(5) envisages that plots with size of more than 1000 sq. meters would be permitted construction with maximum height of 18 metes subject to such plots abutting 12 meters wide roads, therefore, inasmuch as in the present case, the subject plot abuts 9 meter wide road, even if additional floor is to be raised, any construction above 15 meters cannot be permitted as the same requires minimum 12 meters wide road, therefore, the building permission so granted is clearly contrary to Rule 57 of the Rules. He also contends that under Rule 167, for a non-high rise building, additional floor is permitted, only if the subject property abuts road with 9 meter and above. For better appreciation, Rule 57 to the extent relevant is extracted as follows: “CHAPTER – VIII DEVELOPMENT CODES (Provisions for Non-High Rise Development) 57. Permissible Setbacks & Height for All Types of Non-High Rise Buildings 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 (1) The height of buildings permissible in a given site/plot shall be subject to restrictions in the areas notified as (a) Sites in Old/Existing Built up areas/Congested areas/Settlement/Gram Khantam and (b) Areas Prohibited for High Rise Buildings given in the Annexures. (2) The minimum setbacks and permissible height as per Table – 17 and other conditions stipulated below shall be followed. TABLE – 17 Minimum Setbacks and Height Permissible Sl. No. Plot Size (in sq.m) above – up to Parking provision Height (in m) permis sible up to Building Line or Minimum Front Setback to be left (in m) Minimum setbacks on remaining sides (in m) Abutting Road Width Up to 12 m Above 12m & up to 18 m Above 18m & up to 24m Above 24 m & upto 30 m Abov e 30m (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 300 – 400 Stilt Floor 7 12 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7.5 7.5 1.5 2.0 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. (3) Stilt Floor meant for parking is excluded from the permissible height in the above Table. Height of the stilt floor shall not be less than 2.5m. In case of parking floors where mechanical system and lift are provided, height of such parking floor shall not be less than 4.5m. Parking floors in Highrise buildings are also excluded from calculation of height of building. (4) *In case of commercial buildings proposed in plots having an extent of 500-750sq.m, cellar floor for parking may be considered subject to fulfillment of the required Parking space Requirements for the proposed building as given in these Rules. (5) **Buildings of height above 15m and below 18m in Sl.Nos.9, 10 and 11 above, shall be permitted only if such plots abut minimum 12m wide roads only. (emphasis supplied) (6) …….” === 8 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 “Rule 167(2) 3. In sub-rule (2), for clause (ii), the following shall be substituted, namely,- (ii) The TDR as issued above is allowed to be utilized for construction of additional built up area as detailed below: a. Non-High Rise Buildings (upto 18 m Height from ground level including TDR Floors): To construct up to two additional floors, or setback relaxations, or up to two additional floors with setback relaxations with TDR subject to maintaining minimum setback as given below: S. No. Width of the road (in mts) Minimum from setback (in mts) Minimum setbacks on remaining sides (in mts) 1. Up to 18 1.5 For site areas: i. Above 200 to 300 sq.mt- 1.00 m ii. Above 300 to 500 sq.mts – 2.00m iii. Above 500 sq.mts – 2.5m 2 Above 18 3 NOTE: 1. TDR floors are not allowed in case of existing road with is less than 9 m. 2. For plot size above 100 to 200 sq.mts one additional floor shall be allowed with TDR subject to maintaining the setbacks as mentioned in table-17. 3. In respect of Apartment Complexes/ Building/ Block of residential nature, in sites up to 1000 sq. mt, where TDR floors are allowed the parking requirement shall be deemed to be met if the entire stilt floor is left for parking. In cases where the applicant construct the Cellar + Ground + Four Upper Floors (G+4) Residential Building and the cellar is exclusively utilized for parking, the parking requirement shall be deemed to be met if the entire cellar floor is left for parking.” 10. A reading of the aforesaid Rules goes to show that maximum cap of height of a building has been envisaged depending on the size of the plot and so also the minimum setbacks have been envisaged. For any plot between size of 300 – 400 sq. meters, the construction that is permitted should be of maximum height of 12 meters with specified setbacks. Sub- rule(3) of Rule 57 envisaged that for the purpose of determining the height of the structure in case stilt floor is left for parking, the same has to be 9 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 excluded from the permissible height. The height of the stilt floor should always be not less than 2.5 meters and in case where mechanical system and lifts are sought to be provided, the height of the floor shall not be less than 4.5 meters. As seen from the approved building plan, it is evident that the 4th respondent has duly factored the TDRs for allowing one floor in addition to what the respondents 7 to 9 were entitled in terms of Rule 57 and further that the subject property abuts road with 9 meter above. By applying the exclusion of stilt in terms of Rule 57(3), the height of the building would definitely be within the permissible height in terms of Rule 57 r/w.167 of the Rules. The learned single Judge, therefore, was right in coming to conclusion that there was no illegality in granting the building permission, particularly, with regard to the assessment and fixing of height of the subject building. 11. Insofar as the other grievance with regard to non-adhering to the setbacks as envisaged in the building permission, the 4th respondent having taken cognizance of the complaint made by the appellant has already issued notice, dated 25.09.2025, under Sections 452 and 461 of the Act, calling upon the respondents 7 to 9 to show-cause as to why necessary action should not be initiated and the matter is ceased up with it. Perusal of the said notice indicates that there appears to be deviation with respect to setbacks on three sides of the building, resulting in excess construction of the built-up area to the extent of 165.6 sq. meters. The 10 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1 of 2026 respondents 7 to 9 are at liberty to submit explanation to the said notice if not already submitted and after considering the same, the 4th respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders to ensure that the constructions that are raised so far and those that may be raised in future would be strictly in consonance with the building permission so granted. 12. With these observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs