APHC010265932021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15393 OF 2021 Between: 1. MADAKAM NARAYANAMMA, W/O ABBAYII DORA, AGE. 49 YRS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O YERRAMREDDI NAGAR, RAMPACHODAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRATRARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRATARAIT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAMPACHODAVARAM VILLAGE, RAMPCHODAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRATRARY. 3. KAIGALA SITHARAMAYYA, S/O APPARAO, R/O REDDIPETA, RAMPACHODAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MEKALA ANUSHA 2. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2 SRS, J W.P.No.15393 of 2021 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri M.Babji, learned counsel representing Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri P.Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Ms. Devi Sri Roshan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. Assailing the show-cause notice of the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.IA/07/2021 dated 08.07.2021, the petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent accorded building permission vide B.L.R.No.02/2018-19 dated 21.05.2018 to the petitioner. The petitioner could not complete the construction within the time stipulated. When the petitioner intended to construct in the year 2021, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner. 4. Sri P.Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the building permission was granted to the petitioner on 21.05.2018 and the petitioner had to complete the construction within two years. However, the petitioner failed to construct the building and hence, the permission granted on 21.05.2018 lapsed. Without obtaining fresh permission, the petitioner started construction and hence the impugned notice (Ex.P1) was issued. 3 SRS, J W.P.No.15393 of 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the petitioner will make a fresh application to the 2nd respondent in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder, seeking permission to construct the building. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the 2nd respondent to construct the building at D.No.1-193 (as per the earlier permission). If such an application is filed, the learned 2nd respondent shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 27.01.2026 BSK 4 SRS, J W.P.No.15393 of 2021 156 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15393 OF 2021 Date: 27.01.2026 BSK