Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.T.S.V.S.N.R. Mani Manjari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 July, 2025
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
+ W.P.No.515 of 2025, 15425, 23618, 28418 of 2023
and 17367 of 2024
% 18.07.2025
WRIT PETITION NO: 515/2025
Between:
SMT.T.S.V.S.N.R. Mani Manjari and another
...Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dept.,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Distric
and two others.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. V V SATISH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G.P. for Muncipal Admn., Urban Dev
2. M. Manohar Reddy (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP )
3. TURAGA SAI SURYA
< Gist :
2
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
1
2005 SCC Online AP 323
2
2003 (3) ALD 195
3
(2013) 5 SCC 336
4
2024 SCC online SC 3767
5
2025 INSC 610
62005 (6) ALD 552
7
(1974) 2 SCC 506
3
APHC010007812025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 515/2025
Between:
1. SMT.T.S.V.S.N.R. MANI MANJARI,
W/O.T.C.H.V.NARASIMA RAO AGED 46 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.27-15-12-A, BHIMAVARAM WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. T.C.H.V.NARASIMHA RAO, S/O.T.SRI RAMA RAO, AGED
51 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O. D.NO.27-15-12-A,
BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADES
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE ELURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT ANDHRA
PRADESH
4
3. THE BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS
COMMISSIONER BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DISTRICT, AP
...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ,
order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not
issuing Occupancy Certificate (OC) in respect of the building
constructed in Sy.No.99/5 and 6, Ward No.34, Padmalaya Road,
Bhimavaram pursuant to the permission vide BA
No.1074/0276/B./BM C/JPRD 2021/OC I dt.28-06-2024 in spite
of completion of the construction without there being any short
fall as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue Occupancy
certificate forthwith in respect of the said building and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to direct
the 2nd respondent to consider for issue of occupancy certificate
(OC) in respect of the building constructed in Sy.No.99/5 and 6,
Ward No.34, Padmalaya Road, Bhimavaram pursuant to the
permission vide BA No.1074/0276/B./BMC/JPRD 2021/OC I
dt.28-06-2024 pending disposal of the main writ petition and
pass such
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 pleased to implead
Dandu Srinivas Kumar Varma, S/o Late Venkata Rama Raju,
Aged about 55 years, Occ Business,R/o D. No. 71412 and 12B,
5
34th Ward, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District as respondent
No. 4 in the Writ Petition No. 515 of 2025 and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. YASWANTH GADE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SOMA RAJU YELISETTI
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
WRIT PETITION NO: 15425/2023
Between:
1. DANDU SRINIVAS KUMAR VARMA, S/O LATE VENKATA
RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC.
BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 27-14-12 AND 12B, 34TH WARD,
BHEEMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. BHEEMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, BHEEMAVARAM.
3. SMT T S V S N R MANI MANJARI, W/O NARSIMHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, D.NO. 27-15-
12-A, BHEEMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. T CH V NARASIMHA RAO, S/O T. SRIRAMARAO, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, D.NO. 27-15-12-A,
BHEEMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
6
...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 tomay be pleased to issue any writ,
direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus
the orders passed by 2nd respondent in Roc No. 02/2023/G1 5-
2023 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the same and
further direct,2ndrespondent to revoke the building permission
1074/0276/B/BMCWRD/2021 dated 01.02.2022 and to demolish
the unauthorized constructions in the premises bearing D.Nu. 21
15-12A in Sy No. 99/5 and 6, ward No. 34, Bheemavaram, West
Godavari District and to pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 may be pleased to direct
the respondents to stop unauthorized construction activity of
commercial building in the premises bearing D.No. 21-15-12A in
Sy No. 99/5 and 6, ward No. 34, Bheemavaram, West Godavari
District in all respects pending disposal of the writ petition and to
pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V V SATISH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP
)
3. TURAGA SAI SURYA
7
WRIT PETITION NO: 23618/2023
Between:
1. T C V NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. T. RAMA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. D.NO. 22-10-
28, TATAVARTHY VARI STREET, BHIMAVARAM WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P.
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
PRIME HILL CREST, 4TH FLOOR, NEAR DGP OFFICE.
VADDESWARAM VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, AP
3. THE BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERDRAINAGE DIVISION,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BHIMAVARAM, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. DANDU SRINIVAS KUMAR VARMA, S/O. LATE VENKATA
RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. D.NO. 27-14-12 AND 12B, 34TH WARD,
BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or
8
direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of respondent nos. 2 to 4 in not
taking necessary action for removing illegal and unauthorized
construction of commercial complex in the name and style as
Kiranmai towers bearing assessment No. 1074006818 and
residential building under the name Sri RadhaMadhavaNilayam
bearing assessment no, 1074006808 of Bhimavaram Town made
by the 5th respondent by encroaching the Rayalam Drain bund as
illegal, arbitrary and in violation of article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent nos.
2 to 4 to take necessary action to remove the illegal and
unauthorized construction of commercial complex in the name
and style as Kiranmai towers bearing assessment No.
1074006818 and residential building under the name Sri Radha
Madhava Nilayam bearing assessment no. 1074006808 of
Bhimavaram Town made by the 5th respondent and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 pleased to direct the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 4to consider the representation Dated.
10-07-2023 made by the petitioner and take appropriate action as
per law pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP
)
3. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV
4. V V SATISH
9
WRIT PETITION NO: 28418/2023
Between:
1. DANDU SRINIVAS KUMAR VARMA, S/O.LATE VENKATA
RAMA RAJU AGED 54 YEAR, OCC. BUSINES R/O.
D.NO.27-14-13/B, NEAR PADMALAYA THEATRE
BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. SUNKARA SRINIVAS,, S/O. RAMA KRISHNA RAO, AGED
50 YEARS, R/O. GOPI KRISHNA BAR AND
RESTAURANT, DOOR.NO. 27-14-13/B, NEAR
PADMALAYA THEATRE, BHIMAVARAM- 534202.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. BHEEMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS
COMMISSIONER, BHEEMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
3. T C V NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. T.RAMARAO R/O.
D.NO.22-10-28, TATAVARTHYVARISTRET,
BHIMAVARAM-534201.
...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 topleased to issue any writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the natPur writ of mandamus
declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in
Roc.No.1823/2023/G1 dated 21.10.2023 (served on 26-10-2023)
as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the
10
Constitution of India and to consequently setaside the same and
to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 pleased to suspend the
operation of the orders passed by the 2" respondent in
Roc.No.1823/2023/G1 dated 21.10.2023 in so far as with regard
to the property bearing Door No.27-14-13/B, Bheemavaram,
West Godavari District pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V V SATISH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2. TURAGA SAI SURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 17367/2024
Between:
1. DANDU SRINIVAS KUMAR VARMA,, S/O LATE VENKATA
RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
R/O D.NO. 27-14-12 AND 12B, 34TH WARD,
BHEEMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. BHEEMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS
11
COMMISSIONER, BHEEMAVARAM.
3. SMT T S V S N R MANI MANJARI, W/O NARSIMHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, D.NO. 27-15-
12-A, BHEEMAVARAM,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. T CH V NARASIMHA RAO, S/O T. SRIRAMARAO, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, D.NO. 27-15-12-A,
BHEEMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. ELURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY
ITS CHAIRMAN, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT.
...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 topleased to issue any writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus
declaring the action of the 5th respondent in granting building
permission dated 28.06.2024 in respect of an already constructed
unauthorized building despite the orders passed in WP
No.15425/2023 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the building
permission No. 1074/0276/B/BMC/JPRD/2021 dated 28.06.2024
issued by the 5th respondent and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 pleased to suspend the
building permission No. 1074/0276/B/BMC/JPRD/2021 dated
28.06.2024 issued by the 5th respondent pending disposal of the
writ petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V V SATISH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
12
1. SOMA RAJU YELISETTI
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
3. YASWANTH GADE
The Court made the following:
13
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.515 of 2025, 15425, 23618, 28418 of 2023
and 17367 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
As the parties and the issues are common, all the writ petitions are heard together and a common order is being passed.
2. The facts in W.P.No.15425 of 2023 are taken up as lead case for explaining the facts.
3. W.P.No.15425 of 2023 was filed questioning the endorsement dated 23.05.2023 in ROC.No.02/2023/G1 passed by Respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
The Petitioner is the owner of a residential house bearing Door No.27-14-12 and 12B, Ward No.34 of Bhimavaram Municipality. It is stated that on the eastern side of the premises of the said property, Door No.27-15-12/A in Sy.No.99/5 and 6 belongs to Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Respondent Nos.3 and
4 had applied for construction of a residential building on 01.12.2021 and the Respondent No.2 granted building permission vide permit No.1074/0276/B/BMC/JPRG/2021 dated 14 01.02.2022. As per the said building permission, the Respondent Nos.3 and No.4 were permitted to construct Ground + one (G+1) residential building with three bedrooms, kitchen and hall. It is stated that though the building permission was given for residential purpose, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 started construction of a building for a shopping mall. It is stated that there is variation on the width of the road in the approved plan on the southern side and the eastern side and that the building permission was obtained by misrepresenting the facts.
4. The Petitioner approached Respondent No.2 to take action regarding the unauthorized commercial building being constructed by Respondents Nos.3 and 4. As there was no response, the Petitioner had submitted a representation in the grievance cell (Spandana) on 06.04.2021. Another representation dated 11.04.2023 was also given to Respondent No.2. Hence, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.9875 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 20.04.2023 directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 11.04.2023 and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order stating that the staff of the Respondent No.2 had inspected 15 the ongoing constructions of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and stated that they are being made as per approved plan. The Petitioner questions the same by contending that the impugned order is a blatant flaw and that mere looking at the building, it can be easily identified that the Respondents Nos.3 and 4 are constructing a warehouse shaped commercial building. Photographs were also filed along with the writ petition.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit contending that Respondents Nos.3 and 4 were awarded building plan for construction of residential building vide permit No.1074/0276/B/BMC/JPRG/2021 dated 01.02.2022 and that it is incorrect to state that Respondents Nos.3 and 4 are constructing a commercial building. As regards the width of the roads adjacent to the property in question, Respondent No.2 contended that the width of the roads as mentioned in the approved plan are correct. As regards the traffic issues raised by the Petitioner, it was contended that the submissions of the Petitioner are based on anticipation and imagination that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are constructing commercial complex. It was also stated that there is no proposal from Respondent Nos.3 and 4 for construction of commercial building and that the eastern side road known as 16 Komarada Road is the busiest road connecting five villages and not less than 10,000 vehicles pass through the way. It was also stated that on either side of the road, there are hospitals, schools, theatres, shopping malls, supermarkets etc. for over 20 years.
6. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter affidavit denying that they are constructing a commercial building for a shopping mall and that the building under construction is being made as per the plan and permission granted without any deviation. It is also stated that as the construction work is going on, the apprehension cannot be sustained. It was also stated that the Petitioner and his father had constructed a residential building under the name and style Sri Radha Madhav Nilayam and a commercial complex under the name and style Kiranmai Towers in reserved sites for public purpose without obtaining any permission from the Municipality.
7. Subsequently, an additional counter affidavit was also filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in February, 2024 contending that the shape of the building should not be the basis to decide whether the Respondents are constructing a commercial building or not. It was reiterated in the additional affidavit that the building would be used as dormitory which comes under residential 17 usage. It was also stated that the building will not be used for other than the residential purpose. In the additional counter affidavit, it was also stated that a notification was issued on 17.01.2024 changing the very residential zone to commercial zone and that they intend to use the building for residential use reserving their right to use for commercial use in accordance with law due to change of the zone from residential to commercial.
8. This Court on 11.01.2023 taking note of the photographs filed in pen drive along with the writ petition opined that the building in question prima facie appears to be for non-residential purpose. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, a memo was filed by Respondent No.2 on 29.11.2023 and as per the memo, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 constructed ground floor and they had laid RCC slab roof over iron girders from the ground level instead of cement pillars and brick walls on three sides with Kherbry sheet wall cladding on the front side, duly leaving setbacks around the building. It was also stated that rooms and hall were being constructed with wooden MDF boards instead of brick walls and provision for a lift was also made as on ground position. Photographs were also filed along with the memo. 18
9. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 19.07.2024, it was stated that pursuant to change of land use as notified under Notification dated 17.01.2024 from residential to commercial, the Eluru Urban Development Authority (EUDA) had issued building permit vide Permit No.1074/0276/B/BMC/JPRD- 2021 dated 28.06.2024 and in view of the permission given for commercial purpose, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 would be completing the building for commercial purpose. A copy of the building permit was also filed. Questioning the building permission granted by Eluru Urban Development Authority (EUDA) on 28.06.2024 for construction of a commercial building, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.17367 of 2024. The Petitioner principally contends that none of the provisions under the A.P.Municipalities Act empower the Municipality to sanction building permit for already constructed buildings. It was also pleaded that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 had suppressed the factum of building permission issued by Respondent No.2 and the pendency of the writ petition before obtaining building permission from EUDA.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 11.04.2024, it was stated that pursuant to the building permission 19 obtained on 28.06.2024, the construction of the building in question was completed.
11. The Respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.23618 of 2023 questioning the unauthorized construction of commercial complex in the name and style of Kiranmai Towers bearing assessment No.1074006818 and the residential building in the name of Radha Madhava Nilayam bearing assessment No.1074006808 of Bhimavaram town by encroaching the Rayalam Drain bund and for a direction to the authorities to take action against the same. This Court on 11.09.2023 directed the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.07.2023 regarding the unauthorized constructions made by the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the said order in W.P.No.23618 of 2023, the Respondent No.2 passed a detailed order on 21.10.2023 vide R.O.No.1823/2023/G1 stating that the constructions made by the Petitioner in premises Door No.27-14-13-B were being used for Gopi Krishna Restaurant and Bar though the same is located in residential area without obtaining any permission from Bhimavaram Municipality and requested the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Urban Department to take action for removal of encroachments from the 20 area by the Petitioner. Questioning this order passed pursuant to the interim order in W.P.No.23618 of 2023, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.28418 of 2023 contending that there are necessary permissions. The Petitioner was also directed to close the illegal business in residential area under the name and style Gopi Krishna Restaurant and Bar under the impugned order.
12. A writ affidavit was filed by the Petitioner along with the lessee of the bar and restaurant questioning the correctness of the order dated 21.10.2023. As the occupancy certificate was not being issued by the Eluru Urban Development Authority, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed W.P.No.515 of 2025 for a direction to issue occupancy certificate. In the counter filed by the EUDA, it was stated that in view of G.O.Ms.No.5 issued by Government of A.P, MA & UD Department dated 11.01.2025, in exercise of power under Section 115(2) of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority 2016, certain powers were delegated to Municipal Corporations and Municipalities and the issue of occupancy certificate would have to be considered by Respondent No.2-Bhimavaram Municipality and therefore, no cause of action survives for adjudication as against the Eluru Urban Development Authority.
21
13. Heard Sri V. V. Satish, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Standing Council for the Municipal Corporation and Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Chidambaram for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that though the building permission in favour of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 was for construction of a residential building, though constructed commercial building right from the beginning, the counsel contends that the endorsement dated 23.05.2023 was false and the counter affidavit of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are blatantly false. In the light of the photographs filed along with the writ petition in W.P.No.15425 of 2023, it is also contended that the Petitioner, being a neighbour, has right to question the illegal constructions being made. The locus standi of the Petitioner could not be questioned. The counsel emphasised on the Commissioner's report along with the photographs to establish veracity in the counter affidavits of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. It was also contended that the permission issued for commercial construction by Eluru Urban Development Authority cannot be sustained as permission can be given only for a fresh construction, and for constructions already made, the Municipal Commissioner can issue permissions for alteration and 22 modification of the plan originally sanctioned. The counsel also relied upon the following judgements in support of his case:
1) Yaseen Khatoon v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and another 1
2) K.Jawahar Reddy and another v. State of A.P. and others2
3) Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others3
4) Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others4
5) Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin and others5
15. As regards the order dated 21.10.2023, the Petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed with a vengeance as he had filed the writ petitions questioning the constructions being made by Respondents No. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 Municipality contends that originally the building plan was for residential purpose as the property was in residential zone and subsequent to the conversion of the residential zone into commercial zone, the Eluru Urban Development Authority being the sanctioning authority at that 1 2005 SCC Online AP 323 2 2003 (3) ALD 195 3 (2013) 5 SCC 336 4 2024 SCC online SC 3767 5 2025 INSC 610 23 relevant point of time had issued the building permit for construction of commercial premises. It is submitted by the learned counsel that notwithstanding the construction being made for commercial purpose, as long as the building is not being used, till permissions are obtained from the concerned authority, the Petitioner cannot have grievance.
16. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Chidambaram appearing for Respondents Nos.3 and 4 would contend that the building permission though taken for residential purpose, the construction adhered to the setbacks as agreed under the residential building plan and the photographs filed along with the writ petitions would demonstrate this fact. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that even assuming that the construction even from the inception was for commercial purpose, as long as the building is not used, until necessary permissions were obtained from concerned authority, the Petitioner cannot have locus at that stage. Even admitting to the contentions of the Petitioner that the Respondents were constructing commercial premises from the inception, still the Petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced and as long as the setbacks are maintained, no right is affected. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order dated 24 21.10.2023 passed against the Petitioner would amply disclose that the Petitioner himself being admittedly violator of law by not taking any permissions from the Municipal authorities, cannot seek to agitate against constructions being made by the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the Petitioner cannot be said to be having any locus standi to file the writ petitions at this stage. Following case law was also cited by the learned counsel.
(1) Atluri Purushotham v. Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali- Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority and others6.
17. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the following issues fall for consideration:
1. Whether the Petitioners have locus standi to question the illegal constructions?
2. Whether commercial building was being constructed from inception under the guise of Residential plan by Respondent No.3 and 4?
3. Whether the Eluru Urban Development Authority/Municipal Corporation can issue Occupancy certificate to the building?
4. Whether the order impugned in W.P.No.28418 of 2023 is sustainable?6
2005 (6) ALD 552 25
18. Issue No.1: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri K.Ramdas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and others7 held that all the residents in the area have a personal interest to see that the residential area is not disrupted by illegal constructions. The paragraphs 28 and 29 are extracted below:
28. An illegal construction of a cinema building materially affects the right to or enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the residential area. The Municipal Authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoilt by un-authorised construction. The Scheme is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The Municipality acts in aid of the Scheme. The rights of the residents in the area are invaded by an illegal construction of a cinema building. It has to be remembered that a scheme in a residential area means planned orderliness in accordance with the requirements of the residents. If the scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts in excess and derogation of the powers of the Municipality the courts will quash orders passed by Municipalities in such cases.
29. The Court enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone.7
(1974) 2 SCC 506 26 The scheme here is for the benefit of the public. There is special interest in the performance of the duty. All the residents in the area have their personal interest in the performance of the duty. The special and substantial interest of the residents in the area is injured by the illegal construction.
19. The above case is in the context for permission to construct a Cinema Theatre contrary to the Town Planning. This judgment was referred to in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee's case (3 supra). Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the Petitioner does not have locus standi as regards W.P.No.15425 of 2023 questioning constructions contrary to the building plan as approved on 01.02.2022.
20. As narrated above, pursuant to the new master plan issued for Bhimavaram Municipality on 17.1.2024, Respondents Nos.3 and 4 were issued building plan for construction of commercial building on 28.6.2024 by the Eluru Urban Development Authority. The Petitioner filed W.P.No.17367 of 2024 questioning the same. In the said writ petition, there is no mention as to how a legal right of the Petitioner is divested on account of issuance of permit for commercial building plan by the Eluru Urban Development Authority.
27
21. It is well known that issuance of a building permit can be questioned only on two grounds i.e (i) claiming title or any other right to the property for which the building permit was issued and
(ii) if the building permit is in violation of zoning regulations. In this case, the Petitioner is not claiming any title to the property nor is the case that the plan was approved in contrary to the zoning regulations. Therefore, in the absence of any infringement of legal right, the Petitioner cannot be said to have any locus to file W.P.No.17367 of 2024.
22. The contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that once a residential plan has been approved, only revision of the building plan can be considered and that there is no power for the Respondents to issue fresh building plan for commercial construction. This Court is not inclined to accept this argument as a fresh application or revised plan would make little difference as long as the building is in consonance with Rules and regulations. Every procedural error cannot be a ground to be called in challenge in a writ petition in the absence of divestiture of a legal right. In this case, as held supra, no right has been infringed and therefore the Petitioner cannot be said to have any locus standi.
28
23. Issue No.2: Originally, the Respondents were permitted to construct an Individual Residential building vide building permit No.1074/0276/B/BMC/JPRD/2021 on 01.02.2022 by the Bhimavaram Municipality. As per the building plan, permission was granted for construction of Ground floor and one upper floor only.
24. The cause of action for filing W.P.No.15425 of 2023 is that the Respondents contrary to the building plan were constructing a commercial building in an area earmarked for residential area. The Commissioner, Bhimavaram Municipality after considering the objections of the Petitioner rejected the same vide Roc.No.02/2023/G1 dated 23.5.2023 stating that the staff had personally inspected the constructions and that the constructions were made upto the roof on the date of inspection and the same is in accordance with the approved building plan.
25. In W.P.No.15425 of 2023 filed in June, 2023 questioning the said endorsement, the Petitioner filed photographs of the building in question and contended that a commercial building was being constructed. In the Counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2-Bhimavaram Municipality, it was reiterated that the construction was in accordance with the building plan as 29 approved in spite of the photographs filed along with the writ petition. Similar pleadings were reiterated by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their counter affidavit by stating that the constructions are in accordance with the plan.
26. This Court on 01.11.2023 directed the Commissioner to file a status report regarding the constructions and accordingly a status report along with photographs and video in pen drive were submitted to the Court vide memo on 22.11.2023. The paragraph 2 of the report is extracted below:
2) Sri T.Ch.V.Narasimha Rao, S/o Sri Rama Rao at D.No.27-15-12/A of Padmalaya Theater Road, Near J.P.Road, Ward No.34, Bhimavaram Municipality for proposed construction of RCC slab Roof Residential ground floor and kerbey sheet roof residential building in first floor in Proceedings vide B.A.No.1074/0276/B/BMC/JPRD/2021, Dt.29.12.2021 with the conditions enclosed thereon and the permission period of construction with 3 years validity.
27. After the status report, an additional counter affidavit was filed in February, 2024 by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 reiterating that the construction was in accordance with the building plan as approved and that they intend to use a part of the building as "Dormitory". It was also stated that the area was changed to commercial use as per the master plan for Bhimavaram town on 30 17.01.2024 and that they reserve their right to use the same for commercial use after obtaining permission.
28. Accordingly, the Respondents Nos.3 and 4 applied for commercial building permission and the same was approved by the Eluru Urban Development Authority on 28.06.2024. In W.P.No.17367 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner questioning the issuance of commercial building permit, a Counter affidavit was filed by Respondents Nos.3 and 4 in September, 2024 stating that the construction of the building was completed and was given on lease to tenants.
29. The photographs filed along with the writ petition and the status report filed on 22.11.2023 would undoubtedly disclose that the commercial building was being constructed right from the beginning. The photographs and the materials used in the construction as per the status report i.e asbestos sheets, boards etc., would disclose that the structure was more of a warehouse. This is vindicated by the fact that Eluru Urban Development Authority sanctioned plan on 28.06.2024 for commercial building and the Respondents filed counter affidavit in September, 2024 in W.P.No.17367 of 2024 stating that the construction of building 31 was completed and handed over to tenants i.e in less than three months from the sanction of plan.
30. The pleadings of the Respondents in W.P.No.15423 of 2023 do not reflect the true picture and some costs need to be imposed. The mitigating factor is that the building is now in consonance with the A.P.Building Rules, 2017. Apart from that, on the eastern side of the building in question is a road popularly known as Komarada road on which 10,000 vehicles were said to be passing round the clock. It is further stated that there are hospitals, schools, Padmalaya Cine Theatres and immediate thereto is the J.P.Road, which has shopping malls, super markets, hospitals etc.
31. These aspects were not seriously disputed and it is apparent that the area had lost the character of Residential zone long ago and the Petitioner never raised any dispute earlier. Another aspect of the case is that from the Writ Petitions filed by Petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 against each other, it is quite apparent that they were filed more on account of personality clashes rather than subserving the cause of the society. Therefore, this Court taking a lenient view imposes costs of 32 Rs.50,000/- on the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
32. Issue No.3: As per the master plan of Bhimavaram Municipality issued by the GOMs.No.9, MA & UD Department, dated 17.01.2024, the area in question is now coming under commercial zone and a commercial structure is now permitted to be constructed. The Eluru Urban Development Authority (EUDA) taking note of the change of master plan approved construction of a commercial building. The building as it stands today does not violate any zoning regulations nor any deviations in building construction were pointed out. Therefore, there is no reason to restrain issuance of occupancy certificate.
33. In the light of the above, W.P.No.515 of 2025 is allowed with a direction that the Respondent-authorities/present issuing authority shall consider issuance of Occupancy Certificate to the unofficial Respondents (Respondent Nos.3 and 4).
34. Issue No.4: The respondents filed W.P.No.23618 of 2023 seeking to revoke the building permission vide 1074/0276/B/BMCWRD/2021 dated 01.02.2022 for removing the illegal and unauthorised construction of commercial complex in 33 the name and style as Kiranmai Towers bearing Assessment No.1074006818 and residential building Sri Radhamadhava Nilayam. The writ petition was filed as the constructions were made by the Petitioner by encroaching Rayalam drain bund. This Court on 11.09.2023 directed the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.07.2023. The Respondents also filed W.P.No.23706 of 2023 alleging that the Petitioner had unauthorizedly constructed a commercial complex and a bar and restaurant as is being operated in the said place without approval or any municipal plan at Dr.No.128, Street No.400 of Bhimavaram Town. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.09.2023 to consider the representation of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Respondent-Municipality passed the impugned order vide ROC.No.1823/2023/G1 dated 21.10.2023 directing closure of bar and restaurant as the same is being operated in a residential area.
35. As regards the issue of encroachments, the Executive Engineer (Drainage Division), Irrigation Department was directed to measure the premises of the Petitioner and in case there are any encroachments over the drain area by the Petitioner, 34 instructions were given to take appropriate steps to remove the unauthorised constructions. The Petitioner questioned the same in W.P.No.28418 of 2023 contending that no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner to submit his objections and decided the case. The only ground urged in W.P.No.28418 of 2023 being a procedural issue, which cannot be said to be unfounded as the procedure adopted while passing the impugned order is not preceded by any notice under Sections 406 and 452 of the A.P.Municipal Corporations Act. Apart from that, as stated above, the master plan for Bhimavaram Municipality was issued afresh on 17.01.2024 and whether the building in question in this writ petition is in residential zone or commercial zone also needs to be considered again. Therefore, the order dated 21.10.2023 is set aside and this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the Bhimavaram Municipality to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner as prescribed under the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and thereafter pass orders after taking into consideration the explanation of the Petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks.
35
36. In the result, (i) W.P.Nos.15425, 17367 and 28418 of 2023 are disposed of as observed above, (ii) W.P.No.23618 of 2023 is dismissed as infructuous and (iii) W.P.No.515 of 2025 is allowed.
(iv) The costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand ony) imposed on the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall be payable to the Chief Justice's Relief Fund within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
_________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 18.07.2025 Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
KLP