Common Order:

1. The petitioner in WP.No.12184 of 2024 has challenged in-action on part of the 2nd respondent in not considering the complaint of the petitioner against the illegal construction of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in D.No.1-14- 6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

2. WP.No.14603 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of the building permitted order granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

3. WP.No.15771 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners alleging interference on part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the pretext of constructing in deviation with the sanctioned plan and calling upon the petitioners to stop construction without passing any orders.The writ petitioner in WP.No.12184 of 2024and 14603 of 2025 is arrayed as respondent No.4. The petitioners herein are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5 in WP.No.12184 and 14603 of 2025.

4. All the three writ petitions relate to the construction of a building at D.No.1-14-6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. As such, these writ petitions can be disposed off by a common order. WP.No.12184 of 2024 is argued as a lead case by Sri.G.V.L.Ramana Murthy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri.A.S.C.Bose, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the neighbour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and has complained about the unauthorized construction undertaken by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 over the neighbouring plot bearing No.1-14-6. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are constructing a hospital like building without obtaining any permission. The primary allegation is that the respondents 4 and 5 indulged in construction of a building in an unauthorized manner without leaving any set backs.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner also filed WP.No.3200 of 2024 aggrieved by the inaction on part of the official respondents in taking action against the illegal construction. The writ petition was disposed off after recording the submissions of learned standing counsel that appropriate action would be taken against the deviations if any and a further direction to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take necessary steps in accordance with law.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.03.2024, 30.04.2024 and again during the first week of May, 2024. It is also submitted that inspite of receiving repeated representations there was no action on part of the official respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and sought copy of the sanctioned plan if any granted in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and other details. The RTI Application was not properly answered by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

8. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has granted permission for construction of four floors in land admeasuring 259.99 Square yards. The learned senior counsel further submits that the respondents 4 and 5 have sought for permission to construct a building and are now proposing to set up a hospital/Nursing Home which is not permissible under the Building Rules, 2017. The minimum extent of area recorded for setting up a hospital or nursing home is 300 square meters. The land of the respondents 4 and 5 is less than 300 square meters. As such, the official respondents ought to have restrained the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in continuing with such construction. This Court on 19.02.2025, appointed an Advocate Commissioner after considering the application filed by the petitioner to inspect the building and to furnish the photographs with regard to the present status of the building. The learned Advocate-Commissioner has submitted his report. The report indicates that the learned Advocate- Commissioner caused enquiries with the people available and submitted a report. The petitioner has filed objections for the Commissioner’s report.

9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the permission which is issued by the 2nd respondent by stating that the building is for mixed use. It is submitted that the building would have to be either residential, commercial, semi residential, semi commercial or industrial. There is no definition of mixed use in the Municipal Act for issuing such sort of permission. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another Vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others(2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767).The Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that unauthorized constructions would have to be removed and also issued several directions which are to be followed by the statutory authorities while demolishing the unauthorized structures.

10. The counter of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is filed and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has submitted several complaints and one such complaint dated 29.01.2024complaiing about erection of welded sheets resulting in obstruction of free air and ventilation to the petitioner. The respondents 4 and 5 were directed to remove the same. The respondents 4 and 5 duly inform that after the ground breaking ceremony, the respondents 4 and 5 removed the said sheets. It is also submitted that the petitioner again complained about the illegal construction and the respondents caused inspection on 30.01.2024 and found that only earth work was been commenced without any actual construction activity. It is also submitted that the petitioner submitted an application under RTI which was appropriately responded.

11. On receipt of further complaints from the petitioner the 2nd respondent officials inspected the building and found that the respondents 4 and 5 have constructed in deviation to the approved plan and accordingly issued notice under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of APMC Act, 1955. It is submitted that the respondents submitted reply duly informing that the deviations are minor in nature and that they do not constitute deviation of more than 10% of the constructed area and placed reliance on GOMs.No.119, dated 28.03.2017 and that those deviations can be compounded in terms of the said GO. It is also stated specifically in the counter that the petitioner has repeatedly raised complaints against the respondents 4 and 5 though his right was never affected.

12. Sri.A.S.C.Bose, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 also submits that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and his landlord with regard to the compound wall and the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court without there being any cause of action. It is submitted that the complaints of the petitioner have been adequately addressed and the petitioner cannot complain of inaction on part of the respondent authorities in taking timely and appropriate action after receipt of such complaints. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed the writ petitions only to harass the respondents 4 and 5 without there being any merit in the complaints of the petitioner.

13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner has been troubling the respondents by filing repeated complaints alleging unauthorized construction and the first such complaint was filed even before there was any actual construction. The momentof the earth work was started by the respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner started filing complaints. It is submitted that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court and categorically stated that he could not gather any information with regard to the exact date of the construction and a specific finding that there is no recent construction on the subject site.

14. The petitioner has filed objections to the Commissioner’s report and raised several trivial objections which are not substantive. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed on the application of the petitioner and on the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents 4 and 5 were constructing by violating the orders of the Court. The report of the Advocate Commissioner had clarified that there was no construction activity at the site and this aspect was not suiting the petitioner’s requirement.

15. The learned senior counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that the GOMs.No.119, dated 28.03.2017 introduced the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 and Section 2(l) deals with mixed use building. A mixed use building is used for non-residential activities except industrial purpose and partly for residential purpose. It is also submitted that the area where the subject construction is undertaken is completely a commercial area with several commercial establishments existing in the said locality on the same road.

16. The learned senior counsel Sri.K.S.Murthy, also submits that the respondents have obtained permission for construction and have been constructing in accordance with the sanctioned plan with minor deviations. It is submitted that these deviations noted by the 2nd respondent do not require demolition by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted tat even as per the measurements of the said deviations they would be less than 10% of the total extent of permitted construction which can be compounded by the respondents on payment of the compounding fee.

17. It is also submitted that the 1st respondent has issued GOMs.No.225 permitting regularization of the unauthorized constructions subject to such exceptions as noted in said GO. It is also submitted that as per the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017, the respondents 4 and 5 can invoke the said GO and compound the deviations by paying up the applicable compounding fee. That apart, the respondents 4 and 5 can as well submit an application for regularization in terms of GOMs.No.225. As such, the petitioner cannot seek removal/demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction.

18. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply submits that the respondents having admitted the deviations in construction by the respondents 4 and 5 ought to take necessary steps for demolition of the unauthorized construction. At any rate, the permission sought for by the respondents 4 and 5 would clearly indicate that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 intends to establish a nursing home in the subject construction. It is submitted that the AP Building Rules, 2017 would mandate a requirement of minimum 300 square meters of land for construction of a nursing home. The existing construction is on land admeasuring 259.99 Square yards which is much  less than the minimum requirement. As such, the building permission granted for construction of a nursing should be recalled by the respondent authorities.

19. Heard the learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of for the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. Perused the material on record.

20. The grievance of the petitioner is against the inaction on part of the official respondents in containing the respondents 4 and 5 from constructing an illegal structure in violation of the sanctioned building permission. Prayer for cancellation/ recalling the permission granted is also sought.

21. As seen from the counter submitted by the respondents 2 and 3, the respondent authorities have taken action against the subject construction and also issued subsequent notices under Section 451(1) and 461(1) of APMC Act, 1955 and called upon the respondents 4 and 5 to submit their explanation. The respondents have relied upon GOMs.No.119 and submitted a reply claiming that the deviations in the construction are within the permissible limits and such deviations can be compounded in terms of GOMs.No.119.

22. The area where the subject construction is undertaken is can be used for mixed purpose as submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. As such, the permission also was granted for mixed use. This would clearly ambiguity raised by the petitioner that the subject building can be used for semi residential purposes and the submission of the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that the respondents are not opening any nursing home and that they intend to open a Doctor’s Clinic which cannot be equated with a nursing home. As on date, the construction is still underway. As such, this Court cannot determine as to what use the respondents 4 and 5 shall be putting the building to after completion of construction. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents 4 and 5 are constructing a hospital like building. The apprehension is stated on oath at para 4 in WP.No.12184 of 2024 by the petitioner. This Court cannot pass orders on the apprehension of the petitioner.

23. That apart, the submissions of the learned senior appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that the respondents are willing to pay the applicable penalty and compounding fee seeking regularization of the unauthorized structures would have to be considered as the respondents can certainly rely on the GO and seek for regularization of the unauthorized construction.

24. That apart, with the introduction of GOMs.No.225, dated 12.11.2025, the respondents can as well invoke the said GO and submit the application seeking regularization of the construction which is in deviation of the sanctioned plan. These options are always open for the respondents 4 and 5, as such, there cannot be any direction to the Commissioner to recall the building permission granted in favour of the respondents 4 and 5.

25. This Court in WP.No.29895 of 2021 considered similar issue wherein the petitioner therein sought cancellation of the building permission granted in favour of the unofficial respondents. This Court held that it is open for the petitioner to apply to the Commissioner seeking cancellation of permission by demonstrating the material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement in the information furnished for grant of permission. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present set of facts of circumstances of the case. The deviations in the subject building are claimed to be within the permissible limits for compounding. Unless and until the respondent authorities determine the extent of deviations there cannot be a direction issued to the respondent authorities for demolition. That apart the state having introduced GOMs.No.225, dated 12.11.2025, the respondent authorities would have to consider on application for regularization and determine whether the subject building can be regularized by collection of the penalization amount or not. Until then, this Court cannot issue any adverse orders against the said construction of the respondents 4 and 5.

26. It is the Commissioner who is competent to consider the complaint seeking cancellation of building permission as the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent would have all the documents which are submitted by the applicant seeking approval for construction. This Court in a writ jurisdiction on the available material on record cannot issue such a direction.

27. The writ petitions WP.No.12184 of 2024 and 14603 of 2025 deserve to be dismissed as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, that apart the respondents 4 and 5 also have an opportunity of seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction by paying up the requisite compounding fee or penalization amount. The civil disputes if any pending between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 would have to be dealt appropriately by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil Court.

28. With these observations, the writ petition 12184 of 2024 and 14603 of 2025 are hereby dismissed and WP.No.15771 of 2024 is closed, leaving it open for the petitioner therein to approach the 2nd respondent seeking compounding of the deviated extent of the construction or alternatively file an application invoking GOMs.No.225, dated 12.11.2025 seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction. The 2nd respondent would have to deal with the said applications strictly in accordance with law and consider them in accordance with the applicable clauses of the said GO. Pending such consideration, there shall be a direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioners in WP.No.15771 of 2024.

29. Accordingly, WP.No.12184 of 2024 and 14603 of 2025 are hereby dismissed and WP.No.15771 of 2024 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.