IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION No.9898 of 2026 Between: KANTAREDDY JAMAL REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SREERAMA REDDY, H.N0.2-93, SEETHARAMAPURAM, NANDIPALLE, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518502. ... PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR AND 5 OTHERS. ... RESPONDENTS DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 04.06.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI + WRIT PETITION No.9898 of 2026 % 04.06.2026 WRIT PETITION No.9898 of 2026 Between: KANTAREDDY JAMAL REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SREERAMA REDDY, H.N0.2-93, SEETHARAMAPURAM, NANDIPALLE, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518502. ... PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR AND 5 OTHERS. ... RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava ^ Counsel for Respondents : GP for Panchayat Raj Sri M.Sudhir < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) 2001 (1) ALD 600 2) 2007 (2) ALD 45 : 2007 (1) ALT 639 3) 2002 Supreme (AP) 827 : 2022 (5) ALT 68 4) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510 This Court made the following: APHC010196152026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9898/2026 Between: 1. KANTAREDDY JAMAL REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SREERAMA REDDY, H.N0.2-93, SEETHARAMAPURAM, NANDIPALLE, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518502. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL NANDYAL DISTRICT.518501 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, NANDYAL DISTRICT.518501 4. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, MAHANANDI MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.518502 5. THE SEETHARAMAPURAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, MAHANANDI MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.518502 6. THE SARPANCH, SEETHARAMAPURAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAHANANDI MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.518502 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the records relating to the resolution dated 24.12.2025 passed by the 5th Respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India violation of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and Consequently direct the Respondents, particularly the 5th Respondent, to forthwith grant building permission to the Petitioner for the reconstruction of his dwelling house on the property bearing Survey No. 408, admeasuring Ac. 0-04-004 cents, situated in Seetharamapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District in accordance with law and Pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the Original copy of the resolution dated 24.12.2025 passed by the 5th Respondent, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and Pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation and implementation of the resolution dated 24.12.2025 passed by the 5th Respondent, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and Pass such IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5th Respondent, to forthwith grant building permission to the Petitioner for the reconstruction of his dwelling house on the property bearing Survey No. 408, admeasuring Ac. 0-04-004 cents, situated in Seetharamapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and Pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER Impugning the Resolution dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P1) passed by the 5th respondent declining to grant building permission, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. 2. Facts, in brief, as set out in the affidavit, are as follows: (a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the immovable property of an extent of Ac.0-04-004 cents or 195.5 square yards in S.No.408 of Sitarampuram village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District. The petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2009 vide document No.6198 of 2009 (Ex.P2) from Venkata Ramana and Ramakrishnudu. The petitioner‟s vendors along with their brother Srinivasulu purchased a total extent of Ac.0.27 cents of land under a registered document dated 01.06.1991 vide No.2004 of 1991 (Ex.P12). After purchasing the property, the petitioner constructed a mud house and the same was assessed to tax by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner paid house tax, vide Ex.P11. The Gram Panchayat assigned Door No.2-93. (b) The petitioner intended to construct a new building by demolishing the structure. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced construction work. The Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09.12.2025 (Ex.P3), for which the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 11.12.2025 (Ex.P4). The petitioner made a representation dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P5) to the 2nd respondent, District Collector and another representation dated 19.12.2025 (Ex.P6) to the 4th respondent, MPDO, along with relevant documents. (c) The petitioner filed W.P.No.966 of 2026. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner sent all the relevant documents, including the plan, sketch and challan to the 5th respondent by registered post. By order dated 10.03.2026, the Court directed the 3rd respondent, District Panchayat Officer, Nandyal District, to submit a report. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent filed a report, vide Rc.No.275/PTS/A3/2026, dated 22.03.2026. In the said report, it was mentioned that a resolution (Ex.P1) was passed by the 5th respondent, due to a legal notice dated 17.12.2025 (Ex.P14). The W.P.No.966 of 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the resolution (Ex.P1). 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner commenced the construction of a house without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. A show cause notice (Ex.P3) was issued, and the petitioner submitted an explanation (Ex.P4), however failed to furnish the relevant documents. The petitioner started construction without prior approval. The Gram Panchayat received a legal notice (Ex.P14) regarding the title dispute, and hence, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution (Ex.P1). 4. Heard Sri T.Ashok Srivatsava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, for the respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit. 6. Now, the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the Resolution dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P1) passed by the Gram Panchayat is legally sustainable? 2) Whether the writ petition, without availing the alternative remedy, is maintainable? 7. As seen from the pleadings, the petitioner purchased an extent of 195.5 square yards in S.No.408 of Sitarampuram village under a registered document dated 22.10.2009 (Ex.P2). The vendors of the petitioner, along with their brother, purchased a total extent of Ac.0.27 cents in S.No.408 of Sitarampuram village under a registered document dated 01.06.1991 (Ex.P12). The petitioner, after purchasing the property, constructed a structure, and the Gram Panchayat assigned Door No.2- 93. The petitioner also paid house tax to the said structure (Ex.P11). Page 8 of 13 8. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner started construction of a structure initially without getting any permission from the Gram Panchayat, and hence, Ex.P3 show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ex.P4 reply and made representations to the 2nd respondent, District Collector vide Ex.P5 and to the 4th respondent, MPDO vide Ex.P6. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.966 of 2026 challenging the inaction on granting permission. Pending the said writ petition, when this Court called for a report from the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent submitted a report, along with Ex.P1. 9. Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, (herein after referred to as „Rules‟) prescribes the procedure to make an application for building permission. Rule 26 of the Rules stipulates that where no orders are communicated by the Executive Authority regarding sanction or refusal of permission, it shall be deemed to have permitted the permission, and the owner may proceed with the work. Section 2(12) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, defines the 'Executive Authority' mean the Panchayat Secretary appointed to each Gram Panchayat. 10. In the case at hand, the petitioner initially started construction without getting permission from the Gram Panchayat. Section 121 of the Act mandates that no piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building, and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed, and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the permission of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the authority issued a show-cause notice (Ex.P3), and the petitioner submitted a reply (Ex.P4). The petitioner, later, furnished all the relevant documents along with the challan, plan etc., 11. The legal heirs of late Srinivasulu, brother of the vendors of the petitioner, issued a legal notice dated 17.12.2025 (Ex.P14) to the Gram Panchayat and pleaded that the registered sale deed (Ex.P2) was obtained illegally. As seen from the schedule of Ex.P14, as noted supra, the total extent of the land purchased by the 3 brothers, vendors of petitioner and Srinivasulu, is Ac.0.27 cents of land, out of which, 2 brothers alienated Ac.0-04-004 cents or 195.5 square yards, to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner initially constructed a house and resided therein. The Gram Panchayat assigned Door No.2-93, and the petitioner paid house tax. The petitioner and legal heirs of Srinivasulu are residents of the same village, as seen from the cause title of the writ petition and the address mentioned in Ex.P14 legal notice. Of course, as seen from the pleadings, no civil suit has been instituted so far by the legal representatives of late Srinivasulu regarding the sale deed (Ex.P2). 12. (i) Whether issuance of Ex.P14 legal notice, per se, would amount to a title dispute enabling the authority to deny the permission on the ground of dispute? (ii) Whether the Gram Panchayat, while considering the application for the grant of permission, can adjudicate the title of the applicant or the dispute, if any, in relation to the title? 13. Both points are interrelated, and the answer to the questions is no longer res integra. In fact, it is a settled principle of law that while considering the application for the grant of building permission, the authority shall consider, prima facie, the title of the applicant and possession. The decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor would it take away the rights of any other person. The authority also shall not adjudicate the dispute regarding the title, if any, by usurping the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 14. An analogous provision in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was considered by a learned single judge of the composite high court. The scope and ambit of the power of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation under Sections 428 and 429 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, in particular, to the extent of its power to examine the title of the applicant for a building permit, has fallen for consideration in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad1. At Paragraph-40 of the order, it was observed thus: “Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession 1 2001 (1) ALD 600 of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more.” 15. Another learned single Judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Pesala Anudeep, being a minor rep. by his mother P.Siva Rama Laxmi Kumari Vs. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pamuru, Prakasam District and another2, set aside the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and remitted the matter to the Gram Panchayat for fresh consideration. In the said case, a legal notice was issued by one Veeranjaneyulu based upon the decree in the civil suit. The Gram Panchayat rejected the building permission because the title of the property is in dispute, and the same is the subject matter in E.P.No.109 of 2006. In that connection, the learned single Judge observed that merely obtaining a money decree against an individual by itself cannot be said to mean that the decree-holder became the owner of the property, and it would not amount to a title dispute. 16. Another learned single Judge of this Court in Gorle Atchum Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3, observed that while granting building permission, the local body has to look into the prima facie title of the applicant to the property in question. The prima facie verification will not go to the extent of deciding the title to property. Any decision taken by the local body for the grant of building permission will also not confer any title to the application, nor can such ground be taken into account while determining title to property. While observing, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat was held to be arbitrary. 2 2007 (2) ALD 45 : 2007 (1) ALT 639 3 2002 Supreme (AP) 827 : 2022 (5) ALT 68 17. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the petitioner purchased an extent of 195.5 square yards under a registered document dated 22.10.2009. The petitioner constructed a house and, in fact, resided therein. Till the year 2025, no objection was raised by the legal representatives of late Srinivasulu regarding the title of the petitioner. However, the Gram Panchayat, by passing a resolution, rejected the building permission due to Ex.P14 legal notice. 18. A perusal of the resolution would manifest that the Gram Panchayat, in the considered opinion of this court, acted arbitrarily. The resolution would discern that, due to legal notice, the alleged dispute, the permission was not granted. The basis for the said resolution is Ex.P14 legal notice. In the light of Ex.P2 sale deed coupled with Ex.P11 house tax receipt, the petitioner, prima facie, proved title and possession. In fact, the petitioner earlier constructed a structure and resided therein. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner specifically pleaded regarding the structure and his paying tax; however, the same was not denied by the Gram Panchayat in the counter affidavit. In the absence of denial, this court holds that the petitioner resided in the structure in the same place. This court also holds that the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents to the 5th respondent. 19. Of course, this Court is not declaring the title of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. The observations, if any, made by this Court are warranted due to Ex.P1 resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. As of now, there is no civil litigation except for a legal notice (Ex.P14). In the considered opinion of this Court, the resolution dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P1) passed by the Gram Panchayat suffers from arbitrariness, and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Page 13 of 13 20. Regarding the alternative remedy, no doubt, an appeal would lie to the Government under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 against Ex.P1 resolution. However, as held in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain vs Union of India and Others4 it is an established principle of law that the existence of an alternative remedy is ordinarily a rule of self-imposed restraint and not an absolute bar to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as noted supra, the Gram Panchayat acted arbitrarily and passed Ex.P1 resolution; the writ petition is maintainable. 21. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Resolution dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P1) passed by the 5th respondent is hereby set aside. The 5th respondent or the executive authority of the 5th respondent shall consider the application made by the petitioner regarding the construction of a building and pass appropriate orders strictly as per the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the result to the petitioner. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510