APHC010000072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.N o:-1 [3552]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1 of 2026 G. Sudhakar ...Appellant Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)

**********

Advocate for Appellant: Mr.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, Mr.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY, GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 6th January 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

The unsuccessful writ petitioner preferred present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the order of the learned single Judge, passed in W.P.No.31316 of 2025, dated 19.12.2025, by which the writ petition came to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The appellant/writ petitioner owns a residential property at D.No.1/370-5, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa. Respondents 7 and 8 also own an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in plot No.8, vide D.No.1/375, which is abutting to and western side of the appellant property. They have entered into joint development agreement with 9^th respondent for the purpose of constructing residential apartment. The 4^th respondent Corporation has accorded building permission, by order, dated 23.06.2025, permitting construction of stilt and four upper floors in an extent of 379.36 sq. meters plot area. The maximum height permitted was 18.20 meters with front side setback of 3 meters and 2 meters on all other three sides. The appellant having noticed certain deviations both in terms of very sanctioning of building permissions and as well as the constructions being undertaken, has made a complaint through public grievance redressal system in R.C.No. KDP202509222791, dated 06.10.2025. In pursuance to the same, the 4^th respondent has issued provisional notice, dated 25.09.2025, under Sections 452 and 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), notifying deviations/violations in respect of the setbacks and the total built-up area and called upon the respondents 7 to 9 to submit explanations. Besides, petitioner also instituted the writ petition challenging the very grant of building permission in favour of 9^th respondent developer to be contrary to the A.P. Building Rules, 2017.

3. Both official and unofficial respondents contested the writ petition by filing respective counter-affidavits and eventually, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the building permission so granted was well within the ambit of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 and that there was no deviations as such in the grant of building permission. Assailing the same, present writ appeal is preferred.

4. Heard Mr.Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the appellant, and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; Mr.A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development; and Mr.Potham Vengala Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporations – Rayalaseema Area, appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in terms of A.P. Building Rules, 2017, in particular Rule 57, the maximum height that is permissible for any plot measuring between 400 to 500 sq. meters would be only 12 meters, and such plots should abut roads with minimum of 9 meter, as in the present case, the building permission that has been granted was for 18.2 meters, the same is clearly contrary to the aforesaid Rule. He further contended that even otherwise, the setbacks provided in the building permission were not adhered to and that there were clear deviations and when the same were pointed out, the 4^th respondent merely issued provisional notice and has not taken any further action in regard to the same, which is clearly arbitrary and illegal. He contended t