Disposed¶47

Gajula Kalavatamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2025WP/25983/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized construction; demolition of common wall; Allagadda Municipality; Nandyal District; building permission dated 19.06.2025; revised permit/approval dated 04.11.2025; stop order; regularization application under G.O.Ms.No.225; APMR and UDA Act, 2016; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; interim orders dated 14.10.2025; writ petition disposed; no costs; Justice Harinath.N.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the 3rd respondent's regularization application under G.O.Ms.No.225 if it meets its requirements; the 3rd respondent must strictly follow legal procedure, with further deviation to be dealt with by the 2nd respondent; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed. ¶47

Gajula Kalavatamma Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of the 2nd respondent (Allagadda Municipality) in not taking action against the alleged unauthorized construction by the 3rd respondent contrary to the sanctioned plan is arbitrary/illegal, warranting a writ of mandamus with a direction to demolish the construction. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

It is made clear that the 3rd respondent must strictly follow the procedure in accordance with law, and any further deviation will be dealt with by the 2nd respondent.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions, and noting that the direction sought against the 3rd respondent was in pursuance of the interim order by the 2nd respondent, the cause in the writ petition does not survive any further.

¶45

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the 3rd respondent for regularization, if it meets the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.225, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Harinath.N, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 by Gajula Kalavathamma aggrieved by the Allagadda Municipality's inaction over the 3rd respondent's allegedly unauthorized construction (including demolition of the common wall), seeking mandamus and demolition directions. The Municipality's counter showed prior permission (19.06.2025), a stop order cured by a fresh application, and approval/revised permit dated 04.11.2025; the 3rd respondent's regularization application under G.O.Ms.No.225 was pending. Holding that the cause did not survive, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the regularization application if it meets G.O.Ms.No.225 requirements, clarified that the 3rd respondent must strictly follow legal procedure with any further deviation to be dealt with by the Municipality, and made no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

HN, J

W.P.No.25983_2025

APHC010496652025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

[3457]

¶8

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25983/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

GAJULA KALAVATAMMA, W/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, H.NO. 2-5-32, SATRAM STREET, ALLAGADDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶15

THE ALLAGADDA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALLAGADDA KURNOOL DISTRICT. '

¶16

BANDARU GIRISH KUMAR, S/O B.P. DASTAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, H.NO. 6-4-7/U/36, ROAD F NEW MASZID ROAD, ALLAGADDA TOWN AND MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 an appropriate Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking action while illegally constructing a building for purposes of residence and unauthorisidely or commercial by the 3rd respondent in an extent of 124 Square yards site in S. No. 146/1 bearing H.No. 13-5-30 in New Ward, Satram Street, in Allagadda Municipality of Nandyal District Bounded by East House of Gajula Kalavathi (2-5-31) West Nagar Panchayat Road, West Irrigaiton Bodhe and North Nagar Panchayat Road and South Nagar Panchayat Road, contrary to the lleged sanctioned plan as arbitrary, illegal, opposed to the principles of atural justice, contrary to the provisions of the APMR and UDA Act, 2016 nd consequently direct the

HN, J

W.P.No.25983_2025

2nd respondent to demolish the unauthoriesed construction already made and to see not to proceed with further construction by the 3rd respondent and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶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 IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶26

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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of order in W.P No.25983 of 2025 dated 14-10-2025 and to pass

¶27

IA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶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 may be pleased to Vacate the interim orders Dt. 14.10.2025 passed in WP No 25983 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.N SRIRAM MURTHY

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region

¶33

2.N ASWARTHA NARAYANA

¶34

3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶35

¶36

HN, J W.P.No.25983_2025

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The petitioner is filed the present writ petition, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent in not taking appropriate action against the unauthorized construction carried out by the 3^rd respondent.

¶39

It is submitted that the vendor of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent is common, and that the 3^rd respondent began construction by demolishing the old structure; in that process, the 3^rd respondent demolished the common wall that existed between the petitioner’s property and the 3^rd respondent’s property. In that regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.09.2025 to the 2^nd respondent, requesting appropriate action against the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent, by proceedings dated 12.09.2025, informed the petitioner that their grievance had been appropriately addressed and closed the issue.

¶40

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed counters. The 2^nd respondent, in its counter, has placed on record the prior permission granted to the said building of the 3^rd respondent, and also the revised permit order dated 04.11.2025. The 2^nd respondent further submits that any illegal construction beyond the sanctioned extent will be appropriately dealt with. The 3^rd respondent, in its counter, states that the apprehension of the petitioner that it was constructing without permission is unfounded, as the 3^rd respondent had applied for permission and in fact obtained permission

HN, J

W.P.No.25983_2025

on 19.06.2025. A stop order was issued after noticing certain shortfalls; after rectifying those, the 3^rd respondent submitted a fresh application, and approval was granted on 04.11.2025.

¶45

Considering the submissions, and also noting that the direction sought against the 3^rd respondent was in pursuance of the interim order by the 2^nd respondent, the cause in the writ petition does not survive any further. However, it is made clear that the 3^rd respondent must strictly follow the procedure in accordance with law, and any further deviation will be dealt with by the 2^nd respondent.

¶46

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent also submits that, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.225, the 3^rd respondent has submitted an application for regularization of its deviation, which is currently under consideration.

¶47

Be that as it may, the present writ petition stands disposed off, with a direction to 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the 3^rd respondent for regularizing, if it meets the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.225. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶50

Date:21.11.2025 NKA

HN, J

152