APHC010076622026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-47 AT AMARAVATI [3552]

WRIT APPEAL NO: 151 of 2026 Smt. K. Vatchala ...Appellant Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents **********

Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Syed Khader Mastan Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Potham Vengala Reddy (SC for M.

Corporation in Rayalaseema Region), GP for Muncipal Admn & Urban Dev., Mr. Namineni Pavan Kumar CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 16^thFebruary, 2026.

Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 03.02.2026, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in/and W.P.No.2743 of

2026.

Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

2. Building permission, dated 31.01.2025, is stated to have been issued in favour of the petitioner/appellant herein, for construction of RCC residential building consisting of Ground + 2 upper floors in Survey No.335/3, Side D.No.22-5-100, Kothapalli Residential Area, Thimminaidupalem Village in Tirupati District.

3. The petitioner, having undertaken the construction of the said building, is alleged to have deviated from the sanctioned plan which resulted in a provisional notice, dated 08.12.2025, issued under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (for short, “the Act of 1955”). The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner calling upon her to explain as to why the deviation made in the construction should not be removed and demolished. It is not out of place to mention that the deviation was with regard to the setbacks and is in the following fashion:

4. Subsequently, it appears that a confirmation order, dated 02.01.2026, was passed under Sections 452(2) and 461(2) of the Act of 1955 and the petitioner was instructed to pull down the construction within seven days, failing which, the petitioner stood informed that legal action would be initiated against the said construction, including demolition, as per the provisions of the Act of 1955.

5. Finally, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 636 of the Act of 1955, the Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, passed orders, dated 22.01.2026, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove/demolish the deviations made by her within 24 hours, failing which the petitioner stood informed that the demolition would be undertaken at the cost and expense of the petitioner. This order came to be challenged by the petitioner before the learned single Judge, during the pendency of which, an application came to be filed seeking impleadment by respondent No.3 in the writ petition.

6. The main plank of the petitioner's case was that the Government notified a Scheme called Building Penalization Scheme by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.225, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 12.11.2025, under which the deviations could be compounded and the construction regularized, except in cases which fell under clause 6 of the said Scheme, and such cases included among others, encroachment on Government land or property belonging to Public Undertakings, etc., as also in regard to those sites which were under legal litigation/disputes regarding ownership of the site/building.

7. It appears that in the application seeking impleadment, applicant/respondent No. 3 herein brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had concealed the fact that there were several complaints filed by the applicant before the authorities from time to time regarding the grant of building permission in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as the applicant had a dispute with regard to the plot in question with respect to which the building permission had been granted. It is further stated in the application that it was the petitioner who had encroached upon a portion of the land belonging to the applicant, which was a plot over which the construction was supposed to be raised by the applicant.

8. The contention of the appl