APHC010512052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1050 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-15 [3552] Joseph Sriharsha & Mary Indraja Educational Society and others ...Appellant Vs. State Level Water Land and Tree Authority and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Bhuvanagiri Subramanya Kumar Advocates for Respondents : Mrs. S. Pranathi, Spl. G.P. GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Mr. P. Vinod Kumar appearing vice Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 5th January 2026 P C : The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 02.09.2025, passed in W.P.No.13537 of 2025. 2. The petitioners/appellants herein are stated to have constructed a complex in which the appellants are running an educational institution imparting various courses and in which approximately 2,000 students are stated to be undergoing professional courses like Engineering, Pharmacy and Diploma courses. The construction of the building was started as early as in 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1050 of 2025 the year, 2007. The construction was started based upon the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat of Chebrolu, which resolved that construction be done as per the guidelines of the VGTM Urban Development Authority, Tenali. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants states that, as per the scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Gram Panchayat has to then process the case with the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, who has the requisite wherewithal to consider the grant of permission and technical approval for formally authorizing the construction activity.It appears that the case of the appellants was forwarded, by virtue of communication, dated 15.11.2008, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, VGTM-UDA, Tenali, seeking approval of the proposal, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the VGTM-UDA, Tenali. 4. It appears that no such approval was accorded and based upon the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 17.01.2007, the construction activity was started by the appellants. The construction having been completed, the appellants appear to have approached the Gram Panchayat authorities for providing a public drainage connection to the institution of the appellants, claiming that failure on the part of the Gram Panchayat authorities to do the needful was affecting the health and hygiene of approximately 2,000 students studying in the said institution complex and therefore sought a 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1050 of 2025 mandamus against the Gram Panchayat authorities inter alia for providing the drainage system for the appellants’ institution and its premises. 5. By virtue of the judgment and order, dated 02.09.2025, impugned in the present writ appeal, the learned single Judge issued directions inter alia to official respondent Nos.5 to 11 to provide a proper drainage system by collecting the required funds from the petitioners’ institution, if necessary, in accordance with law. The CRDA authorities and respondent Nos.8 to 10 were also granted liberty to initiate appropriate legal action against the petitioners, since they did not have any valid approval/permission for construction as mandated under the provisions of the UDA Act or the CRDA Act. 6. In the present writ appeal, the appellants are aggrieved only of certain directions as contained in direction Nos.2, 3 & 5, which are as under: “(ii) The official Respondent Nos.5 to 11 are hereby directed to provide proper drainage system subject to availability of funds with the respondent – Gram Panchayat and by collecting required funds from the 2nd petitioner institution if necessary in accordance with law within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) The 2nd petitioner institution is hereby directed to cooperate and coordinate with the official respondent Nos.5 to 11 and shall contribute required funds as per their demand for providing proper drainage system for arresting loss or damage to the crops of the unofficial respondents. … (v) Further, the respondent Nos.8 to 10 and including CRDA are at liberty to initiate appropriate action or legal proceedings against the petitioners, since the petitioners were not granted valid approval / 4 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1050 of 2025 permission for construction as mandated under the provisions of Urban Development Authority Act or Capital Region Development Authority Act.” 7. Although learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the construction raised by the appellants was in accordance with the Rules and the Act of 1994 inasmuch as there was a resolution passed permitting the appellants to raise the construction and that it was the obligation of the Gram Panchayat to process the case of the appellants for grant of formal approval, yet it cannot be denied that no such formal approval had ever fructified in favour of the appellants and therefore we have no doubt in our mind that the construction raised by the appellants was unauthorized. 8. It is, in that backdrop, pertinent to mention that the appellants had from time to time approached the concerned authorities to avail the benefit of building penalization schemes and appears to have deposited certain amounts of money as well, which only presupposes the fact that the construction even according to the appellants was unauthorized. 9. Therefore, the direction, insofar as direction No.5 is concerned, granting liberty to the authorities to initiate action against the petitioners in those circumstances cannot be said to be in any manner legally unjustified. 10. Insofar as the direction to construct the drainage system with funds available with the Gram Panchayat or by collecting the required funds from the petitioners’ institution is concerned, it appears that the Gram Panchayat has demanded an amount of Rs.1.45 Crores, which is estimated to 5 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1050 of 2025 be the cost likely to be incurred on the construction of the drainage system, from the petitioners. Since admittedly the construction in question is unauthorized, the Gram Panchayat would be justified in claiming the aforementioned amount from the appellants, as the Gram Panchayat would be under no obligation to serve the interests of an entity, which has thrown caution to the winds and undertaken the unauthorized construction activity in gross violation of the Rules and the procedure pertaining to the construction. 11. In the meantime, it also appears that, pursuant to our direction, dated 26.09.2025, the CRDA, by virtue of its communication/order, dated 18.10.2025, has rejected the application filed for regularizing the construction already raised. It appears that, as stated by learned counsel for the appellants, the aforementioned communication has since been challenged by the appellants in W.P.No.34981 of 2025. 12. In our opinion, no interference is warranted in the judgment and order impugned, dated 02.09.2025. The present Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 6 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1050 of 2025 100 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.A.No.1050 of 2025 Dt: 05.01.2026 kbs