Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18251 (AP)

PALURU GOPALA KRISHNAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WA/211/2026 · 2026-02-26

Challa Gunaranjan, Dhiraj Singh Thakur

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010107922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 211 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3552] Paluru Gopala Krishnaiah ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Sri D. S. Sivadarshan Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Proddatur Municipality. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 27th February 2026 P C : The appellant seems to be aggrieved of the construction being raised by private respondent Nos.3 and 4, who appear to be violating the building plan sanctioned by Proddatur Municipality. 2. There has been a lot of litigation in the past between the two private parties. The appellant at present is aggrieved of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.27552 of 2025 dated 19.02.2026 whereby, the learned single Judge has permitted the private respondent Nos.3 and 4 to go ahead with the construction. 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that instead of granting interim relief stopping the construction contrary to the sanctioned plan, the learned single Judge has, in fact, permitted the construction activity to go on contrary to the sanctioned plan by fixing a final date for hearing the matter. 4. Be that as it may, since the issue involved is limited in its controversy, we direct that any construction which is raised by private respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall be strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The Municipality shall ensure that there is no violation permitted contrary to the building plan and in case there is any, strict action be taken to remove the construction to the extent of the violation noticed. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD 3 08 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL NO: 211 of 2026 Dt:27.02.2026 AMD