APHC010706622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NOs: 80 and 81 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3552] Kona Sreekanth ...Appellant Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr.G V S KISHORE KUMAR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mrs.SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR MUNICIPALITIES, Mr.PENJURI VENUGOPAL, GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 6th March 2026 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these intra-court appeals are disposed of by way of common order inasmuch as the same emanated from common order of learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2025 passed in W.P. Nos.19435 of 2021 and 2142 of 2022 respectively. 2. (a) Appellant in the present appeals has initially approached this Court by filing W.P. No.19435 of 2021, questioning the inaction of respondent municipality in considering representation dated 28.08.2021, by which it was complained that 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.80 and 81 of 2026 the unofficial respondent herein was proceeding with illegal constructions towards his Eastern boundary, which essentially gave access to the appellant to reach Municipal Bazaar. Thereafter, it appears, the respondent municipality has issued provisional order/notice dated 07.09.2021 purported to be issued under Section 228 (1 & 2) r/w Section 209, 212 of APM Act, 1965 and Sections 89 (1 & 2) r/w Section 82, 90(1) of APMR & UDA Act 2016 (Act 5 of 2016), ordering the unofficial respondents to stop further constructions forthwith and to show cause as to why unauthorized construction should not be removed and accordingly, explanation was sought for within seven days. (b) As no explanation came to be offered within time, eventually, confirmation order dated 03.01.2022 stated to have been passed in terms of Section 228(3) of APM Act, 1965. However, it appears, the unofficial respondent had given a reply on 20.01.2022 inter alia stating that the subject construction was being raised over an extent of 55 square yards in Plot No.14, otherwise stood assigned in his favour by availing benefit of BLC Urban House construction scheme which extended financial assistance to the beneficiaries for which Government had sanctioned ₹1,80,000/-. In support of the said claim, the unofficial 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.80 and 81 of 2026 respondent stated to have submitted house allotment proceedings, the receipts towards cement, sand and iron issued by the Government, house tax receipts, etc. (c) Besides that, specific plea was also raised that the unofficial respondent had submitted explanation dated 09.12.2021 requesting not to demolish the structures already raised, however, the same was not taken into consideration before passing the final confirmation order. In that view of the matter, the unofficial respondent was constrained to challenge the confirmation order dated 03.01.2022 by instituting W.P. No.2142 of 2022. (d) The respondent Municipality has filed counter. As per the counter filed by respondent Municipality, it was stated that after issuance of provisional order/notice dated 07.09.2021, as there was no explanation offered, impugned confirmation order came to be passed directing removal of the construction made without prior permission. However, the factum of unofficial respondent submitting reply to the notice dated 20.01.2022, along with various annexures as mentioned above, was admitted to. 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.80 and 81 of 2026 (e) Further, it is also stated that the construction came to be completed in all aspects, and upon verification of the aforesaid documents so furnished, it was found that the Tahsildar, Gudivada, had granted house site patta and construction was undertaken in pursuance to the financial aid received under BLC Urban house construction scheme floated by the Government. (f) Confronted with both these rival pleas and also considering the stand of Municipality as pleaded in the counter, learned Single Judge came to conclusion that confirmation order dated 09.01.2022 came to be passed without regard to the unofficial respondents explanation/representation dated 09.12.2021. Further that the assignment of house site patta in favour of unofficial respondent cannot be ruled out and rather determined to be not genuine merely because the Tahsildar at later point of time communicated that the house site patta certificate was not available in their office. Mere non-availability of records in the office of Tahsildar, one cannot draw a conclusion on genuineness or otherwise of the house site patta stated to have been issued in favour of unofficial respondent. 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.80 and 81 of 2026 (g) With the aforesaid observations, learned Single Judge has declined to issue any further directions in regard to the constructions so made based on the confirmation order. Aggrieved by the same, present appeals are preferred. 3. Heard Mr.G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for appellant, Mr.Penjuri Venugopal, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Mrs.Sirisha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4. 4. (a) Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the house site patta, as claimed by the unofficial respondent to have been assigned in his favour, is forged and fabricated document and no such patta ever existed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interdicted with the confirmation order, by which the structures erected over such house site were directed to be removed. Unless the structures are pulled down, the appellant would not secure access to the main bazaar. (b) Further, learned counsel also has drawn attention of this Court to the sketch and as well as communication of Tahsildar, Gudivada, to contend that the records available with Tahsildar did not confirm the issuance of house site patta as claimed by 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.80 and 81 of 2026 unofficial respondent, hence, the patta one exhibited is clearly forged and fabricated one. 5. (a) On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Municipality contended that the confirmation order came to be passed since the unofficial respondent chose not to submit any explanation, and as it was found the constructions so made were without any permission, necessary action was proposed. However, later, when the unofficial respondent had submitted representation enclosing house site patta, tax receipt, receipts issued under BLC Urban House construction scheme to justify the constructions made, the same came to be verified and found to be genuine, therefore, they did not proceed with any further action. (b) Learned counsel for unofficial respondent also contended that despite submitting explanation dated 09.12.2021, the respondent municipality proceeded to pass confirmation order as if no explanation had been submitted and rightly learned Single Judge has found fault with. Further, the construction being made since is over an extent of about 55 square yards and the same is undertaken with the aid of BLC Urban House construction 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.80 and 81 of 2026 scheme, the construction so made cannot be said to be illegal and unauthorized. 6. The complaint of appellant proceeds on the basis that the house patta stated to have been issued in favour of unofficial respondent is sham and forged document and no such patta ever existed. In order to establish the aforesaid fact, appellant tried to rely on the communication of the Tahsildar, Gudivada, who had stated that their office records do not show that such patta had been issued to the unofficial respondent. Learned Single Judge has taken a view that merely basing on such communication, the genuineness or otherwise of house site patta cannot be decided. 7. We are also of the view that such seriously disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in writ proceedings in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution and better the same are left to be decided before appropriate and competent courts. Insofar as the construction undertaken over subject property, it appears the unofficial respondent had been selected as one of the beneficiaries under BLC Urban House construction scheme, by which he came to be extended financial assistance and accordingly, the construction has been completed. Since the 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.80 and 81 of 2026 construction has been completed with the aid of aforesaid financial assistance, learned Single Judge expressed that until and unless the genuineness or otherwise of the house site patta is decided, it would not be in the interest of unofficial respondent to issue directions for giving effect to the confirmation order. We do not find any infirmity with such conclusion. 8. The construction so made is in plot admeasuring 55 square yards and we are also informed that any construction made in a plot of size less than 100 square yards does not require specific permission. Be that as it may, we do not find any infirmity with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, we find no merit in these appeals and hence, the same stand dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss