Y. Jayachandra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Y. Jayachandra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the Writ Petition stands disposed of with observations and directions — the construction is not per se illegal, all parties including Respondent No.5 may verify the genuineness of the approved building plan and proceed in accordance with law, and Respondent No.7 may separately pursue his encroachment claim; nothing expressed on merits as regards genuineness of the approved building plan; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 2 to 5 were guilty of inaction in not taking action against the alleged illegal/unauthorised construction by respondents 6 and 7 in Sy.No.230/1 of Tiruchanoor village, warranting a writ of mandamus. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The building constructed by Unofficial Respondent No.7 cannot be said to be per se illegal, since he was able to establish that there is an Approved Building Plan vide Proceeding dated 28.09.2019 and the same is under scrutiny; consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter.

Key takeaways

All parties, including Respondent No.5, are at liberty/open to verify the genuineness of the approved building plan and proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶¶32
Respondent No.7's contention that the Writ Petitioner encroached into his land by about 3 ½ feet is outside the ambit and scope of the present Writ Petition; Respondent No.7 is at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law on that issue.ratio¶¶32
The Court clarified that it has not expressed anything on merit as regards the genuineness of the approved building plan.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.) disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioner sought a mandamus against respondents 2 to 5 for not acting against the building constructed by respondents 6 and 7 in Sy.No.230/1 of Tiruchanoor village, alleging violation of the provisions of the Municipal Act. Respondent No.7 produced an Approved Building Plan sanctioned by the Panchayat Secretary dated 28.09.2019 with Proceeding B.A.No.17/2019 dated 28.09.2019, annexed to his counter affidavit filed on 09.03.2026. Respondent No.5's counter affidavit (10.03.2026) stated the plan was under verification and scrutiny and did not dispute its genuineness. Prima facie concluding that the construction could not be said to be per se illegal, the Court declined to interfere; it left all parties, including Respondent No.5, free to verify the genuineness of the plan and proceed in accordance with law. The Court held respondent No.7's allegation of encroachment (about 3 ½ feet) against the petitioner to be outside the ambit of the writ and gave him liberty to pursue appropriate legal action. It expressly clarified that it had expressed nothing on merit regarding the genuineness of the approved building plan. No order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

APHC010381692021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO: 23243 OF 2021

Between:

Y. Jayachandra Reddy,, S/o. Late Y. Ramchandra Reddy, Hindu, aged 67 years, 0cc Business, R/o. Khadi Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Vijayawada.

Tirupati Urban Development Authority, Represented by its Vice Chairman, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

The Panchayat Secretary, Pamadavathipuram, Grama Panchayati, Tiruchanoor Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati, Chittoor District

P Nagabhushanamma, W/o P. Ravi Naidu Hindu, aged about 49 years, 0cc House wife, R/o New Door No. 7/18, Old Door No. 8-4/6/2, Telephone Exchange Road, Padmavathi Puram, Padmavathi Puram Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

P Ravi Naidu, S/o P. Krishnama Naidu, Aged about 54 years, 0cc Business Major, R/o New Door No. 7/18, Old Door No. 8-4/5/2, Telephone Exchange Road, Padmavathi Puram, Padmavathi Puram Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: P HEMACHANDRA

2

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents:T BALAJI Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents:Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA Counsel for the Respondents:Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats

3

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri N. Manikanta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Hemachandra, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri T. Balaji, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7, Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5, Ms. D. Nagachandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for Respondent No.4 and Sri K. Kalyan Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for TUDA.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief:

“……. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not taking appropriate action for the illegal construction of building being made by the 6^th and 7^th respondents in Sy.No.230/1 of Tiruchanoor village accounts, Telephone Exchange Road, Padmavathipuram, Padmavathi Gram Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, as being illegal and in violation of Provisions of Municipal Act and consequently direct the respondents to take necessary action for the illegal construction being made by the 6^th and 7^th respondents on his plot situated in Padmavathipuram Gram Panchaayt, Tirupati Rural Mandal and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper”.

The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is to the effect that the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 & 7 have constructed the building illegally without obtaining prior permission and also complained inaction on the part of the Respondent No.5 in not taking appropriate action against such illegal construction. In this regard, the Writ Petitioner appears to have approached (Respondent No.2) and in response to the complaint of the Writ Petitioner, the Vice Chairman of Respondent No.2 has addressed a letter to the Panchayat Secretary on 25.06.2020 & 03.02.2021 (Exs.P.1 & P.2) directing the Panchayat Secretary to initiate action.

In fact, the Unofficial Respondent No.7 has filed the Counter Affidavit on 09.03.2026. In the Counter Affidavit, the Unofficial Respondent No.7 had annexed the Approved Building Plan by the Panchayat Secretary dated

4

28.09.2019 and also corresponding Proceeding bearing B.A.No.17/2019 dated 28.09.2019. The present Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.5) has also filed the Counter Affidavit on 10.03.2026. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Para No.5 of the said Counter Affidavit, which indicates that the Approved Building Plan of Unofficial Respondent No.7 dated 28.09.2019 is under verification and scrutiny. It has not been stated anywhere in the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No.5 that the Approved Building Plan of Unofficial Respondent No.7 is not genuine. Rather the said Unofficial Respondent No.7 intends to verify the genuineness.

Prima-facie , it appears to the Court that Unofficial Respondent No.7 is able to establish that there is Approved Building Plan and that the Respondent No.5 intends to verify the genuineness of the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the building which is constructed by Unofficial Respondent No.7 is per se illegal. In the Counter Affidavit of Unofficial Respondent No.7, he contends that the Writ Petitioner has also encroached into his land of an extent of about 3 ½ feet. This Court is of the opinion that this issue is not within the ambit and scope of the present Writ Petition and the said Unofficial Respondent No.7 is at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. Insofar as the facts of the present case is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that since the Unofficial Respondent No.7 is able to establish that there is an Approved Building Plan vide Proceeding dated 28.09.2019 and the same is under scrutiny, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present matter. It is open for all the parties including the Respondent No.5 to verify the genuineness and proceed in accordance with law.

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on merit as regards the genuineness of the approved building plan. No Order as to Costs.

5

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 02.04.2026 JKS

6

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 23243 OF 2021

02.04.2026

JKS