The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that no construction can proceed without explicit statutory authorization under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. This ruling clarifies the legal consequences of unauthorized building activity and imposes a clear duty on local authorities to enforce compliance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner challenged the inaction of respondent No.3, the Panchayat Raj Department, in failing to suspend the building permission granted by respondent No.4, the local Panchayat, to respondent No.7. The permission, issued under B.A.S.No.10/20 dated 07.07.2021, authorized construction of a residential house on 194.33 square yards of land in Survey No.519/E/1, Pudipatla Village. The terms explicitly required completion within two years, failing which the permission would lapse.
Procedural History
- 07.07.2021: Respondent No.4 granted building permission to respondent No.7 with a two-year completion clause.
- July 2023: Deadline for construction expired without completion.
- 2024 - 2025: Respondent No.7 continued construction activities despite lapse of permission.
- 23.01.2025: Panchayat Secretary issued notice (Roc.No.01/UC/2026) directing cessation of work.
- 23.01.2026: Respondent No.4 issued a fresh notice confirming the permission had lapsed and no renewal was granted.
- 27.01.2026: Writ petition filed seeking declaration of illegality and direction to halt construction.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration that the ongoing construction was illegal and a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to enforce statutory compliance by preventing further construction until valid permission was obtained.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether construction activity can lawfully proceed after the statutory permission granted under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 has lapsed due to non-completion within the stipulated period.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the permission granted under B.A.S.No.10/20 was conditional and time-bound. Once the two-year period expired without completion, the permission automatically lapsed under the Act’s provisions. Continued construction without fresh approval constituted a violation of Section 217 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which mandates prior sanction for any building activity. Photographs submitted as evidence showed active construction, proving ongoing illegality.
For the Respondent
The State contended that a notice had been issued on 23.01.2025 directing cessation of work, indicating administrative awareness. However, no formal order revoking the permission was produced. The respondents argued that the lapse of permission was procedural and did not automatically render construction illegal, suggesting that the petitioner lacked locus standi.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, particularly Section 217, which requires prior approval for construction. It held that permissions granted under this Act are not perpetual; they are subject to conditions, including time limits. The Court emphasized that lapse of permission due to non-completion is not a mere technicality but a substantive legal consequence.
"The permission granted under the Act is not a license to construct indefinitely. Once the stipulated period expires without completion, the authorization ceases to exist, and any further construction is without legal sanction."
The Court rejected the argument that administrative notice alone suffices to enforce compliance. It clarified that mere issuance of a notice does not equate to revocation or enforcement. The onus lies on the local authority to actively prevent unlawful construction, not merely to issue warnings. The Court found the petitioner’s evidence - photographs of ongoing construction - sufficient to establish a prima facie violation.
The Court further noted that non-compliance with building permissions undermines the entire regulatory framework of urban and rural planning, enabling haphazard development and encroachment on public land. It held that the failure of respondents 3 and 4 to take proactive steps to halt construction amounted to dereliction of statutory duty.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that construction without valid statutory permission under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is illegal, even if prior permission had been granted but lapsed. The Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to ensure no further construction occurs on the subject land until fresh, valid permission is obtained from respondent No.4.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Permission Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must verify the validity of building permissions before advising clients on construction projects
- Lapsed permissions cannot be revived by mere inaction or informal notices
- Any construction post-lapse is vulnerable to immediate demolition orders
Local Authorities Must Act Proactively
- Panchayat Secretaries and District Officers cannot rely on passive enforcement
- Issuing a notice is insufficient; they must issue stop-work orders and, if necessary, initiate demolition proceedings under Section 220
- Failure to act may expose officials to writ jurisdiction for dereliction of duty
Evidence of Construction Is Sufficient for Writ Relief
- Photographic evidence of ongoing construction is admissible and compelling in writ petitions
- Petitioners need not wait for formal revocation orders to seek judicial intervention
- Courts will intervene at the prima facie stage where statutory violations are visibly ongoing
