Bench Sr.No:-15 v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present intra-court appeal is preferred assailing order dated

28.11.2025 in W.P. No.21626 of 2025 passed by learned Single Judge. In a way, learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of writ petitioner/ appellant, thus aggrieved present appeal. 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.963 of 2026

#2. (a) The appellants/writ petitioners claimed to be owners to an extent of 355.55 square yards in Survey No.30/7 of Madhurawada, Ganesh Nagar, Visakhapatnam, having acquired the same through registered sale deed vide Document No.2861 of 2001, dated 22.07.2004. Out of the said extent of land, an extent of 145.01 square yards was gifted in favour of the 5th respondent, none other than sister of 1st writ petitioner. Both appellants as well as 5th respondent intended to construct residential houses, therefore, obtained building permits vide proceedings even dated

09.12.2021. (b) The appellants, having noticed that 5th respondent encroached their property to an extent of 54.43 square yards, and started constructing even over the said land, made a complaint to the 2nd respondent to take action regarding the illegal constructions being made in deviation to the approved plan. The 2nd respondent issued provisional notice under Section 452(1) r/w 462(1) of A.P. Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter, for short ‘APMC Act’) on 17.09.2024. As there was no explanation, eventually confirmation order was passed on 21.10.2024 directing 5th respondent to remove the illegal constructions. 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.963 of 2026 (c) Since no further action was forthcoming, the appellants preferred W.P. No.21626 of 2025. Simultaneously, even the 5th respondent herein also preferred W.P. No.30404 of 2025 challenging the provisional notice dated 17.09.2024, followed by confirmation order dated 21.10.2024. The 2nd respondent eventually issued notice dated 06.11.2025 directing the 5th respondent to remove illegal structures, assailing the same, W.P. No.31348 of 2025 was preferred. Pending consideration of said writ petition, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.225,

12.11.2025, introducing Building Penalisation Scheme for regularisation of illegal structures. In pursuance to the same, 5th respondent made application, dated

25.11.2025, regularisation of the constructions made in deviation of building permit. (d) Having noticed the promulgation of building penalisation scheme by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 12.11.2025, all three writ petitions came to be disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application of 5th respondent regularisation in accordance with law and till such time not to take any coercive steps in pursuance to the confirmation order. 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.963 of 2026

#3. Heard Sri KVSD Ravi Teja, rep. Akhil Pavan Yedida, learned counsel for appellants and learned Government Pleader Municipalities, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned standing counsel and Sri Paravada Manoj Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for respondents.

#4. (a) Learned counsel for appellants contended that mere pendency of application seeking regularisation would not be a bar for the 2nd respondent to initiate further steps in pursuance to the confirmation order dated 21.10.2024, hence, the structures constructed in deviation to building plan should have been demolished. Therefore, the order of learned Single Judge in granting protection to 5th respondent pending consideration of the application seeking regularisation of the illegal structures is erroneous. That apart, it is also urged that since the 5th respondent has encroached into the appellant's property to an extent of 54.43 square yards, the constructions made over such disputed property would not fall within the purview of Building Penalisation Scheme, therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is unsustainable. (b) Learned counsel also brought to our notice about pendency of W.P.(PIL) No.245 of 2025, wherein Building Penalization Scheme is under challenge and that this Court, vide order dated 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.963 of 2026

25.02.2026, directed that no application should be processed or decided in pursuance to the said scheme till further orders. Therefore, contended that the 5th respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of pendency of the said writ petition for indefinite period.

#5. Per contra, learned counsel for 5th respondent submits that the appellants have merely challenged the common order in W.P. No.21626 of 2025, however, portion of the order aggrieved in W.P. No.30404 of 2025, is not in challenge. Therefore, the grounds urged by appellants would be of no help. Further, it is submitted that appellants have suppressed the fact of filing O.S. No.250 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, and suffering order of rejection in securing temporary injunction with respect to the disputed portion of property, therefore, even on this count, the appeal deserves dismissal.

#6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by both parties and perused the record.

#7. The impugned common order disposed three writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.31348, 21626 and 30404 of 2025. The present appeal is preferred against order in W.P. No.21626 of 2025. The 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.963 of 2026 appellants are aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order by which the 2nd respondent was directed not to take any coercive steps pending consideration of disposal of 5th respondent's application for regularisation of the constructions made over subject property.

#8. As rightly contended by learned counsel for 5th respondent, there is no challenge qua the prayer made in W.P. No.30404 of 2025, in which, the provisional order and confirmation order were assailed. That apart, the appellants not only suppressed the pendency of suit between them and 5th respondent also did not mention that they suffered order of dismissal in I.A. No.554 of 2024, filed for temporary injunction. The rights of the parties inter se with respect to the disputed area of 54.43 square yards depend on outcome of the said proceedings. Further, as this court in W.P.(PIL) No.245 of 2025, directed respondents therein not to process and finalize the applications received by them seeking regularisation, the same cannot be put against the 5th respondent and deny the right to consideration under the said scheme.

#9. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in granting protection to 5th respondent pending consideration of application under Building Penalisation Scheme, 2025. We 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.963 of 2026 therefore do not see any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS