Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Kantareddy Jamal Reddy, S/o. Sreerama Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9898 of 2026
Decided On : 04-06-2026
For the Petitioner: Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava.
For the Respondents: GP for Panchayat Raj, Sri M. Sudhir.
Local bodies granting building permissions must perform a prima facie assessment of title and possession but lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of ownership or title, which remains the prerogative of civil courts.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a Gram Panchayat resolution that denied building permission on the grounds of a title dispute raised via a legal notice. The petitioner claimed ownership through a registered sale deed and demonstrated prior usage of the site for residential purposes with tax assessments. The court framed the issues as whether the Gram Panchayat could adjudicate disputed titles and whether the resolution was legally sustainable. The Court held that local authorities lack the jurisdiction to act as civil courts in adjudicating title disputes. The ratio decidendi established that authorities must perform a prima facie assessment of title and possession for building permits, and such permission does not confer title nor deprive objectors of their legal rights. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat was set aside with directions to reconsider the application according to law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background leading to the dispute over building permission denial. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. statutory framework governing building permissions and the authority of the gram panchayat. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. limits of administrative jurisdiction concerning title disputes in building permits. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. application of legal principles to reach the decision and remedy irregularities. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
Impugning the Resolution dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P1) passed by the 5th respondent declining to grant building permission, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.
2. Facts, in brief, as set out in the affidavit, are as follows:
(a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the immovable property of an extent of Ac.0-04-004 cents or 195.5 square yards in S.No.408 of Sitarampuram village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District. The petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2009 vide document No.6198 of 2009 (Ex.P2) from Venkata Ramana and Ramakrishnudu. The petitioner’s vendors along with their brother Srinivasulu purchased a total extent of Ac.0.27 cents of land under a registered document dated 01.06.1991 vide No.2004 of 1991 (Ex.P12). After purchasing the property, the petitioner constructed a mud house and the same was assessed to tax by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner paid house tax, vide Ex.P11. The Gram Panchayat assigned Door No.2-93.
(b) The petitioner intended to construct a new building by demolishing the structure. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced construction work. The Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09.12.2025 (Ex.P3), for which the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 11.12.2025 (Ex.P4). The petitioner made a representation dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P5) to the 2nd respondent, District Collector and another representation dated 19.12.2025 (Ex.P6) to the 4th respondent, MPDO, along with relevant documents.
(c) The petitioner filed W.P.No.966 of 2026. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner sent all the relevant documents, including the plan, sketch and challan to the 5th respondent by registered post. By order dated 10.03.2026, the Court directed the 3rd respondent, District Panchayat Officer, Nandyal District, to submit a report. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent filed a report, vide Rc.No.275/PTS/A3/2026, dated 22.03.2026. In the said report, it was mentioned that a resolution (Ex.P1) was passed by the 5th respondent, due to a legal notice dated 17.12.2025 (Ex.P14). The W.P.No.966 of 2026 was dismissed as withdrawn, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the resolution (Ex.P1).
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner commenced the construction of a house without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. A show cause notice (Ex.P3) was issued, and the petitioner submitted an explanation (Ex.P4), however failed to furnish the relevant documents. The petitioner started construction without prior approval. The Gram Panchayat received a legal notice (Ex.P14) regarding the title dispute, and hence, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution (Ex.P1).
4. Heard Sri T.Ashok Srivatsava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, for the respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit.
6. Now, the points for consideration are:
1) Whether the Resolution dated 24.12.2025 (Ex.P1) passed by the Gram Panchayat is legally sustainable?
2) Whether the writ petition, without availing the alternative remedy, is maintainable?
7. As seen from the ple
