APHC010719472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 18 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-13 [3552] Sunkara Hemanth Choudary and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr.SAI SANJAY SURANENI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.B VAMSI KRISHNA, GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP, Mr.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 03rd February, 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) The unsuccessful writ petitioners preferred present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the order of the learned single Judge, dated 19.11.2025, passed in W.P.No.20768 of 2019, by which the writ petition came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellants/writ petitioners claim to have purchased portion of constructed rooms along with undivided share in the land under registered sale deeds, dated 18.11.1997, 19.06.1998, and 30.06.1997 respectively. 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.18 of 2026 The property that was purchased by them stated to have been constructed at Door No.59A-17/1-198 of Pantakaluva Road, Patamata, Vijayawada. In pursuance to building permission, dated 06.02.1997, issued by the 2nd respondent, which allowed construction of stilt with four floors, the aforesaid residential building was stated to have been constructed. That being so, in pursuance to a complaint made by one of the residents of the building, petitioners were issued notice, dated 31.10.2019, under Sections 451 and 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), inter alia informing that the rooms constructed in stilt floor which otherwise meant for parking, as owned by writ petitioners, were unauthorised, hence were asked to submit explanation as to why the said unauthorised structures be not removed. Petitioners have submitted explanations on 06.11.2019. Eventually, the 2nd respondent passed orders under Section 636 of the Act on 12.11.2019, calling upon the petitioners to remove the unauthorised structures in the parking area of stilt floor within 24 hours, failing which, the same would be removed departmentally. Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred W.P.No.20768 of 2019. Initially, this Court has protected the interest of the writ petitioners, however, after filing of the detailed counter-affidavits by both the official and unofficial respondents, the learned single Judge having noticed the constructions so made, which were in the form of rooms, were clearly contrary to the building permission granted and as there was clear 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.18 of 2026 restriction in running any commercial activity within the parking area, dismissed the writ petition. Further, the 2nd respondent was directed to restore the parking area over which four rooms were constructed and were being utilized for commercial activities by removing the same. Assailing the same, the present writ appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for the appellants; learned Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for 1st respondent; Sri S.V.S.S.Sivaram, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for 2nd respondent; and Sri B. Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the learned single Judge ought not to have stepped into the shoes of the 2nd respondent Corporation and embarked on deciding as to whether the construction of rooms and utilizing the same for commercial purpose, was whether in accordance with the building permissions or the provisions of the Act, rather should have left it to the 2nd respondent to decide the said aspect, inasmuch as, petitioners have already submitted explanation to the initial notice, dated 31.10.2019, issued under Sections 452 and 461 of the Act. In other words, it is his submission that the learned single Judge should not have substituted himself as decision maker in the process of exercising judicial review. In support, reliance has been placed on the 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.18 of 2026 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan1. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent – residential association, opposing the aforesaid submissions, contended that since the order of the learned single Judge is well reasoned, does not suffer from any infirmity. They contended that the appellants were initially put on notice of the unauthorised shops those were constructed by issuance of notice under Sections 451 and 461 of the Act and after considering the explanation of the appellants, final orders have been passed under Section 636 of the Act, therefore, it cannot be contended that there is no final order as such passed before proceeding with demolition of the unauthorised structures and hence, question of learned single Judge substituting himself to embark on making a final decision for 2nd respondent does not arise. 6. We carefully considered the submissions of the respective counsels and also perused the material on record. 7. The initial building permission that was granted in favour of the original land owners envisaged construction of stilt and four floors, and that the stilt was earmarked for parking, except for making provision for 1 (2025) 257 Comp Cas 352 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 374 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.18 of 2026 plumber room, electrical panel room, generator room, and watchman's room. Further in between electrical room, plumber room, generator room and watchman room, a passage was left which was meant for accessing the building from southern side of the road. It appears the land owners have constructed four enclosed rooms and have alienated the same to the appellants on various dates. Eventually, the appellants have converted them for commercial purposes and are presently running commercial shops. The photographs filed clearly indicate the existence of commercial shops in the stilt area. 8. In that background, the residents of the building have submitted complaint to the 2nd respondent for taking action to remove the unauthorised structures so made. The 2nd respondent has initially issued notice, dated 31.10.2019, under Sections 452 and 461 of the Act, calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the unauthorised structures so constructed be not removed. The appellants have submitted explanation, dated 06.11.2019, and the same came to be disposed of by passing a final order, dated 12.11.2019, under Section 636 of the Act. In the said order, the 2nd respondent had categorically stated that the construction of shops in parking area of stilt floor was carried out unauthorizedly and such unauthorized constructions were causing obstructions in parking area, which was clearly contrary to the sanctioned 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.18 of 2026 plan, therefore, the appellants were directed to remove the unauthorized construction of shops immediately. 9. In this background, though the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the 2nd respondent has merely issued notice calling for explanation and even before it has passed final orders, the learned single Judge has substituted his views rather than relegating the matter to the 2nd respondent Corporation, we really do not find any merit in such submission. There is no quarrel with respect to the proposition that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the 2nd respondent itself has decided to issue directions for removal of unauthorised shops by passing final order, question of the learned single Judge stepping into the shoes of the 2nd respondent does not arise. The order, dated 12.11.2019, clearly disposes of the objections by holding that the construction of rooms which were being utilized for commercial activities as contrary to the sanctioned building plan, and the learned single Judge merely reiterated the said contents, but has not given any independent findings as such by stepping into the shoes of the 2nd respondent. 10. Though the constructions those were made were much earlier in point of time, even before the appellants purchased the same, inasmuch as the constructions so made were in deviation to the sanctioned plan, the 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.18 of 2026 2nd respondent was well within his powers to pass orders of demolition and restore the space for the purpose for which it was meant. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the sanctioned plan and also the photographs filed along with the appeal, to contend that not only shops have been constructed in contravention to the building plan, but also the main passage leading from the road to the building was also blocked by making additional construction which was really denying the right of access to all the residents. We find force in aforesaid submission, as the building permission clearly envisaged passage to the flats facing the southern part of the road, the same could not have been blocked by constructing any structure in deviation to the sanctioned plan. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs