##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:3455

APHC010438232024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-21

[3552]

AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 22306 of 2024

Rayavarapu Eshwara Malleswara Rao ...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents

**********

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Abdul Masthan S representing

Mr. V V Satish

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. A S C Bose (SC for municipal

Corporations) for R.3 & R.4

CORAM : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 3^rd February, 2026

P C :

In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order, dated

03.04.2024 passed by the Lokayukta.

2. It appears that the petitioner had raised some construction on the

ground and first floor in Gajuwaka junction in ward No.66 without seeking any

permission. It further appears from the record that the Zonal Commissioner,

Gajuwaka Zone-IV issued notices under Section 452 & 456(1) of the Andhra

Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing the petitioner to stop the

work. There also appeared to be a dispute between the petitioner and

respondent No.5 – Maddi Govinda Reddy, who approached the office of the

Lokayukta with the present complaints, with regard to the subject building,

2

HCJ &2 0C2G6R:A, JP HC:3455

WP_22306_2024

3. A report was sought from the Zonal Commissioner who submitted

in his report, dated 19.09.2022, that show cause notices had been issued to

the petitioner along with the town planning officer who had failed to take action

against the unauthorized construction.

It was also stated in the action taken report, dated 14.03.2022 that the

authorities had since demolished the subject unauthorized construction.

Besides this, it was also reported that an explanation from the town planning

officer and another had been sought in regard to the unauthorized

construction in the prohibited area.

4. It is in those circumstances, after the filing of the report, the

Lokayukta closed the complaints by recording the factum of action already

having been taken with regard to the building in question.

5. The petitioner in the instant case is aggrieved of that part of the

direction issued by the Lokayukta whereby the Zonal Commissioner, GVMC

Zone IV, Gajuwaka, had been directed to issue suitable instructions to the

concerned staff to keep a constant watch and not to allow any further

unauthorized construction in the subject prohibited area.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the direction

to the Zonal Commissioner to not allow any further unauthorized construction

was impermissible inasmuch as the Lokayukta at best can make a

3

HCJ &2 0C2G6R:A, JP HC:3455

WP_22306_2024

recommendation and not issue any directions in the nature as has been done

in the order impugned passed by the Lokayukta.

7. While the petitioner may be correct that the power and authority

of the Office of Lokayukta can be found to make recommendations to the

Government for appropriate action, yet we feel that no interference is

warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case especially where the

petitioner has failed to establish as to how he had a right to raise any

construction unauthorisedly in the said area where construction appears to

have been prohibited.

8. We find no merit in the present petition which is accordingly

dismissed. We make it however clear that in case the petitioner seeks to raise

any construction, if it is otherwise permissible in the said zone, the

construction would be raised only after obtaining appropriate permission from

the authorities concerned. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

Vjl