SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8211

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
K. Vatchala – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department and 2 others – Respondent
I.A.No.2 of 2026 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 2743/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Sateesh Kumar Eerla
For the Respondents: Sri P. Vengal Reddy, Sri Namineni Pavan Kumar

Suppression of material facts and failure to join necessary parties render a writ petition untenable; fraud on the court mandates dismissal of the case.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 - Section 636 - Writ petition for mandamus - Notice issued for demolition of structures deemed illegal due to violations - Non-disclosure of material facts and non-joinder of necessary parties constitute grounds for dismissal - It was found that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands, suppressing several crucial facts regarding property disputes with the applicant. (Paras 12, 15, 16, 22, 26)

(B) Jurisprudence - Principle of Clean Hands - Litigants must approach the court with full disclosure of material facts; suppression leads to dismissal of the case - The court emphasized that fraud on the court vitiates all actions and orders obtained through dishonest means. (Paras 17, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned a disputed property and obtained a building permit for construction, but later received notices for demolition due to alleged violations. An applicant alleged that the petitioner suppressed facts and did not disclose encroachments during proceedings, leading to a claim of fraud. (Paras 4-11)

Findings of Court:
The court determined the petitioner acted dishonestly, suppressing crucial facts, and thus abused the judicial process, warranting dismissal of the petition with costs. (Paras 26-27)

Issues: The issues included whether the petitioner engaged in suppression of material facts and whether the application for impleadment should be granted due to non-joinder of necessary parties. (Paras 11, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-disclosure of significant material facts and failure to join necessary parties render the petition untenable and reflective of unclean hands, rejecting any claims for relief thereby. (Paras 16, 26)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed with costs.

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Sateesh Kumar Eerla, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P. Vengal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation appearing for Respondent No.2. Heard Sri Namineni Pavan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Impleadment Applicant in I.A.No.2 of 2026.

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

“It is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Notice No. 221/1012/TPT/UC/2025, Dated 22.01.2026 issued under Section 636 of AP Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for Short the Act') by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and without considering the petitioner pending BPS Application No. BP2025/TIR/TPT/1/011835 dated 31-12-2025 as per G.O. M.S. No. 225 dated 12.11.2025 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and violation of the Arts 14,19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps for demolition of the structures made by the petitioner premises D.No.22-5-100, Sy.No. 353/3, Thimmanaidupalem Revenue Village, Tirupati Mandal, Election Ward No-1, Tirupati and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The above Writ Petition and Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2026 are being considered together in the present Order.

4. The facts on record, as stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, would indicate that one Smt. R. Vani has purchased land by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 12.11.2008 bearing Document No.7304 of 2008. Thereafter, one Sri T. Surendra Babu purchased the subject land from Smt. R. Vani on 23.01.2015 vide Doc.No.322 of 2015. The Writ Petitioner herein has purchased the subject land from Sri T. Surendra Babu on 12.03.2018 vide Doc.No.1275 of 2018; that the Petitioner has been in enjoyment and possession of the said land ever since the date of purchase; that the Petitioner applied for building permit, and the same was approved along with the building plan on 01.02.2025 (Ex.P.3) by Respondent No. 2 (Tirupati Municipal Corporation) for construction of ground floor plus two floors residential building; that the Petitioner, however, has constructed only ground plus one floor instead of ground plus two floors due to insufficient funds and completed the same on or about 01.07.2025; and House-Warming Ceremony was performed by the Writ Petitioner on 26.09.2025.

5. It is further stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the 2nd Respondent issued a Provisional Notice dated 08.12.2025 notifying various violations in construction, for which the Petitioner submitted her explanation on 09.12.2025 (factually incorrect); that thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued a Notice directing the Petitioner to pull down the illegal construction within seven days from the date of receipt of the Notice; that the 2nd Respondent also issued Notice under Sections 452(2) and 461(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, directing the Petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within 24 hours, failing which the 2nd Respondent would be constrained to remove/demolish the unauthorized deviations made in the building without any further Notice (Ex.P.1).

6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner submitted an Application for Regularization of deviations in construction under the Building Penalization Scheme - 2025 (hereinafter referred to as BPS - 2025) on 31.12.2025; and that having been aggrieved by the Notices issued by Respondent No. 2 dated 08.12.2025, 02.01.2026 and 22.01.2026, the Petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition.

7. In the Lunch Motion moved by the Writ Petitioner, this Court, having examined the facts as presented by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, was pleased to grant an Interim Order on 30.01.2026 suspending the Impugned Proceedings dated 22.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top