Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J., Challa Gunaranjan, J.
Dandu Srinivas Kumar Varma - Appellant
Versus
T. S. V. S. N. R. Mani Manjari and others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No: 1129 of 2025 along with Writ Appeal Nos.1130 and 1131 of 2025
Decided On : 08-12-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. V. V.Satish
For the Respondent: Mr. R. K. Acharyulu SC Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel for Municipalities, Mr. Yaswanth Gade, GP Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev AP.
A.P. Municipalities Act permits changing construction purpose from residential to commercial based on changed circumstances without prohibitions.
Headnote:(A) A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 - Sections 209, 210, and 227 - Change of building use from residential to commercial - Court upheld the permission granted by the Eluru Urban Development Authority to convert a residential building plan to a commercial one based on changed circumstances. (Paras 11-18)
(B) Judicial Review - Discretion of municipal authorities - No prohibitive clause in the A.P. Municipalities Act that prevents a change of purpose for construction based on changed contextual conditions. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the building construction of private respondents, alleging it violated the initial residential use permit. Following inspections, it was deemed the construction was commercial in nature.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the private respondents constructed a building intended for commercial purposes and that costs were to be imposed for misleading representations.
Issues: The legitimacy of changing building permissions according to the A.P. Municipalities Act and whether the structure was residential or commercial in nature were the primary issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined there was no prohibition against applying for a change in building usage and deemed the evidence indicative of the true commercial intent of construction.
Result: Writ appeals disposed of with modified costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. genesis of construction controversy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. commissioner reports on construction nature. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. disputes over commercial vs residential use. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. argument on changing building purpose. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's conclusion on construction character. (Para 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 6. no prohibition on changing construction usage. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. imposition of costs and case disposal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.
The present Writ Appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, dated 18.07.2025, whereby Writ Petitions bearing Nos.15425 of 2023, 17367 of 2024 and 515 of 2025, have been decided.
2. The genesis of the controversy lies in the construction which is raised by the petitioners in W.P.No.515 of 2025, i.e. Smt. T.S.V.S.N.R. Mani Manjari and Sri T.C.H.V. Narasimha Rao.
3. It appears from the record that permission was granted by the Bhimavaram Municipality in favour of the private respondents herein to raise construction for a residential building falling in Survey Nos.99/5 and 99/6, within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality. Permission was granted vide order dated 01.02.2022, for raising Ground + One Upper Floor building comprising three Bedrooms, a Kitchen and a Hall.
4. The allegation of the appellant was that after having obtained the building permission for a residential building, the private respondents in the instant Writ Appeals started building a shopping mall. Inaction on the part of the municipal authorities to take action forced the appellant to prefer W.P.No.9875 of 2023, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 20.04.2023, whereby the municipal authorities were directed to consider the representation of the appellant and pass appropriate orders thereupon.
Pursuant to the consideration of the representation, the Commissioner of Bhimavaram Municipality passed an order, dated Nil.05.2023, wherein it was held by the said Commissioner that the construction raised by the private respondents was being raised in accordance with the approved plan and that there were no deviations or unauthorized constructions as on that date.
This order came to be challenged by the appellant herein in W.P.No.15425 of 2023. By virtue of an interim order, dated 28.06.2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the municipal authorities to not permit any construction activity on the spot, in case the same was in deviation of the sanctioned plans.
5. It also appears that the learned Single Judge called for a report from the Commissioner of Bhimavaram Municipality, in which report it was stated by the Commissioner, upon ground verification, that the building owners had constructed the building in Ground Floor RCC slab roof laid over the iron gudders from the ground level instead of cement pillars.
It was also stated that there were brick walls on three sides and the front side had been covered with Kerbey Sheet Wall Cladding, leaving setbacks all around the building. The Commissioner also stated in the report that the owners of the building were constructing rooms and hall with wooden MDF board cladding instead of brick walls and were also to provide the provision for a lift.
6. In other words, the Commissioner tried to justify the construction of the building as a construction which was residential in character.
7. Photographs placed on record along with the report of the Commissioner, however, suggested another story, far from justifying the construction to be in the nature of a residential building.
8. On the face of it, even to us, the construction clearly is one which shows it to be more in the nature of a warehouse/large go-down instead of a residential building with rooms, toilets, and a kitchen, as was otherwise reflected in the sanctioned plan.
9. A similar opinion was expressed even by the learned Single Judge in its order, dated 27.12.2023, where it recorded thus:
“Pursuant to the order dated 01.11.2023 of this Court, the Commissio
