Dismissed¶61

Konala Veeraraghava Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Aug 2025WP/1069/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized construction; prayer hall/church; Ground+2 floors; Machavaram Grama Panchayat; Rayavaram Mandal; East Godavari District; Rule 26 / Rule 26(2) Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002; Section 121 Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; Section 6 Right to Information Act, 2005; RTI endorsement 24.12.2019; District Collector permission 28.12.2019; Gram Panchayat sanction/plan release 13.01.2020; Article 226; Article 300-A; Section 151 CPC interim applications; writ of mandamus refused; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merits, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed. ¶61

Konala Veeraraghava Reddy, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merits, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.5 made unlawful/unauthorized construction at D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayat, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District without any approval or permission, and whether respondents 2 to 4 were obliged to stop it, initiate action against it and demolish it. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

Before the filing of the writ petition itself, respondent No.5 had been granted permission/sanctioned plan for construction of Ground+2 floors for a prayer hall/church as per rule 26(2) of the Rules, 2002.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

The District Collector is the competent authority for granting permission in respect of any place of worship or prayer hall.

¶57

Key takeaways

In the instant case, the then District Collector issued proceedings granting permission on 28.12.2019 to respondent No.5.ratio¶57
Respondent No.4 (Gram Panchayat) also released/sanctioned the plan on 13.01.2020 as approved by the District Collector vide permission proceedings dated 28.12.2019.ratio¶57
In view of the permissions granted by the District Collector (28.12.2019) and the plan/sanction released by the Gram Panchayat (13.01.2020), the allegation of the petitioners that respondent No.5 proceeded with the construction without there being any approval or permission is liable to be rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), Writ Petition No. 1069 of 2020, decided 20.08.2025 by Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. Resident-petitioners of Machavaram village sought a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to demolish an allegedly unauthorized Ground+2 floor prayer hall/church constructed by respondent No.5 at D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayat, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, relying on a Gram Panchayat notice dated 31.10.2019 and an RTI endorsement dated 24.12.2019 stating that no permission had been granted. Held: even before the writ petition was filed, respondent No.5 had been granted permission/sanctioned plan for Ground+2 floors for the prayer hall/church under Rule 26(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002; the District Collector is the competent authority for places of worship/prayer halls and issued permission proceedings dated 28.12.2019, whereupon the Gram Panchayat released/sanctioned the plan on 13.01.2020. The allegation of unauthorized construction was therefore rejected and the writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merits, with no order as to costs.

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010006082020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1069/2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

KONALA VEERARAGHAVA REDDY,, S / O. PALLAREDDY, HINDU, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-183/A, VINAYAKA TEMPLE, MACHAVARAM, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

KARRI SATYANARAYANAREDDY,, S/O.KARRI VEERREDDY HINDU, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-162, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, MACHAVARAM, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

SATHI BHAMIREDDY,, S/O.SATYANARAYANA REDDY HINDU, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-84, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, MACHAVARAM, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

CHINTAPALLI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O.KRISHNA MURTHY HINDU, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-78/ 1, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, MACHAVARAM, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST

¶17

¶18

GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYATH OFFICER, RAJ AMAHENDRI RAIN, EAST GODAVAR. DIST.,

¶20

MACHAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, MACHAVARAM VILLAGE, EAST GODAVARI DIST.

¶21

TEEPARTHI SRIR IVASU MARANATHA RAO, S/O.SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/ O.MANGALIPETA, MACHAVARAM VILLAGE, EAST GODAVARI DIST

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 4 in stopping or initiating action against the unlawful/unauthorized constructions being made by the 5th respondent in D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayath, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, despite the complaint of the petitioners and despite the information provided by 4h respondent under RTI Act vide Ref.No.29/2019, dt.24.12.2019, to the affect that no permission or approval for construction given to the 5th respondent, are nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and unreasonable and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, by consegaently directing the respondents 2 to 4 to demolish the existing unlawful /unauthorized construction made by the 5th respondent in D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayath, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari Distri a, and also not to permit any further constructions, except under due process of law, and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶25

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 Grant Interim Orders of Direction .0 direct the respondents 2 to 4 to stop and demolish the constructions being made by the 5th respondent in D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayath, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, w th immediate effect, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of Writ Petition

¶26

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶28

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 Grant Interim Orders of Injunction restraning the 5th respondent from proceeding with any type of constructions in D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayath, Rayavaram Man(lal, East Godavari District, with immediate effect, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of Writ Petition

¶29

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶30

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 grant leave to file counter and present leave petition and pass

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶32

1.P RAJESH BABU

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.G L NAGESWAR RAO

¶35

2.N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for MPP ZPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)

¶36

3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO: 1069/2020

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶43

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶44

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in stopping or initiating action against the unlawful/unauthorized constructions being made by the 5^th respondent in D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayath, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, despite the complaint of the petitioners and despite the information provided by 4^th respondent under RTI Act vide Ref.No.29/2019, dated 24.12.2019, to the affect that no permission or approval for construction given to the 5^th respondent, are nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and unreasonable and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, by consequently directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to demolish the existing unlawful/unauthorized construction made by the 5^th respondent in D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Grama Panchayath, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and also not to permit any further constructions, except under due process of law and pass such other order.”

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are permanent residents of the 4^th respondent/Gram Panchayat and they are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of

¶47

¶48

respondent No.4 which is allowing the unauthorized construction made by respondent No.5.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that without there being any proper approval or permission, respondent No.5 proceeded with the construction at D.No.2-72A, Ward No.2, Machavaram Gram Panchayat, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Even though, the petitioners brought to the notice of respondent Nos.2 to 4 about the illegal construction, they neither stopped the construction nor taken any steps for removal of the construction already made by respondent No.5. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No.4/Gram Panchayat issued notice dated 31.10.2019 to respondent No.5 confirming the contention of the petitioners that there is no permission/approval granted in favour of respondent No.5. He also contended that the 1^st petitioner made an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In reply to the said RTI application, the 4^th respondent issued an endorsement dated 24.12.2019 confirming that no permission was granted in favour of the 5^th respondent. Even though it is an admitted fact that there is no permission or approval, allowing the 5^th respondent to proceed with the construction and completing the same is illegal, arbitrary and subject construction is liable to be removed.

¶51

¶52

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4/Gram Panchayat filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is categorically stated that on 28.11.2019, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution recommending the application of the 5^th respondent for granting permission/approval to the competent authority i.e., District Collector who is empowered to grant permission for construction of worship places/prayer halls as per Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. After considering the resolution as well as plan submitted by the 5^th respondent, the then District Collector granted permission on 28.12.2019 permitting the 5^th respondent for completion of the constructions as per the plan submitted by him.

¶53

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 reiterates that in view of the permissions already granted by District Collector on 28.12.2019, the Gram Panchayat also released the plan as well as permission vide proceedings dated 13.01.2020. He further submits that in view of the permissions granted as per Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and also as per Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the contention of the petitioners is liable to be rejected.

¶54

On the other hand, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that

¶55

¶56

respondent No.5 was granted permission for Ground+2 floors by the Gram Panchayat vide proceedings/sanction order dated 13.01.2020. Accordingly, respondent No.5 proceeded with the construction and completed the construction as per the plan approved by the District Collector as well as Gram Panchayat as per Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and also as per Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

¶57

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of by holding that before filing the Writ Petition itself, the respondent No.5 was granted permission/sanctioned plan for construction of Ground+2 floors for prayer hall/church as per rule 26(2) of the Rules, 2002. The District Collector is competent authority for granting permission in respect of any place of worship or prayer hall. In the instant case, the then District Collector issued proceedings granting permission on 28.12.2019. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4/Gram panchayat, the 4^th respondent also released the plan/sanctioned the plan on 13.01.2020 as approved by the District Collector vide permission proceedings dated 28.12.2019. In view of the same, the allegation of the petitioners that the

¶58

¶59

respondent No.5 has proceeded with the construction without there

¶60

being any approval or permission is liable to be rejected.

¶61