Safiya Malik

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Harinath N directed the authorities to determine and notify the impact fee payable for the completed building intended to serve as a party office and, upon payment, to issue the occupancy certificate within the prescribed timeline. The dispute concerned the refusal of the respondents to grant the certificate and their actions affecting access to the premises. The Court noted that officials are duty-bound to issue an occupancy certificate once a building is complete and suitable for occupation, and criticised the respondents for withholding approval despite the structure meeting the necessary requirements. It further directed that the slabs laid over the municipal drain providing entry to the premises should not be disturbed.

The matter concerns the allegation of inaction by the municipal and development authorities in issuing the completion/occupancy certificate for a building constructed to be used as a party office. The petitioners stated that they had obtained two acres of land on lease under G.O.Ms.No.360 dated 18.05.2022 for a period of 33 years and had secured building permission after payment of requisite fees. They further asserted that the constructed building had been assessed to property tax and that they had paid the applicable amounts on different dates in 2023 and 2024.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Counterclaim In Specific Performance Suit; Orders That A Counterclaim Cannot Be Filed Against Co-Defendants Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC

The petitioners contended that despite complying with all statutory requirements, respondent authorities delayed the occupancy certificate and appeared to be attempting to deny it. They referred to the provisional notice issued on 26.06.2024 under provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the APMR & UDA Act, 2016. They submitted that they had submitted a detailed reply and additional representations but that the respondent authorities passed a confirmation order on 09.05.2025 allegedly without considering their material or the earlier court directions in another writ petition.

The petitioners also contended that the access road laid by them over the municipal drain for ingress and egress to the building was demolished by authorities, and that attempts to relay the slab were prevented by respondent police officials. They stated that their Licensed Technical Person (LTP) was denied access to the online portal, preventing online submission of documents, which led to their physical submission pursuant to the court’s interim order dated 21.08.2025.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 stated in their counters that the petitioners were also liable to pay an impact fee of Rs.25,00,000 and had not paid the same. They stated that online submission of documents through LTP was mandatory under the A.P. Building Rules, 2017. They submitted that the matter was pending consideration with the Government after receipt of petitioners’ physical documents.

The Court recorded that “it is not in dispute that the petitioners constructed the building in accordance with the building permit order dated 21.06.2024” and that all relevant fees, including the building application and permit fees and the vacant land tax, had been paid. It noted that the petitioners had submitted all documents and complied with the shortfalls, including the additional set submitted in physical form pursuant to the Court’s order dated 21.08.2025.

The Court examined Rule 3(22) of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 and observed that “Rule 3(10)(a)(i) of AP Building Rules, 2017 would entitle the applicant to submit an application for building permission in writing and/or through online as prescribed by the concerned authority.” It stated that Rule 3(22) was not applicable in the present situation since the construction stage was already completed, noting that “the construction of the petitioners had passed the stage of permission for construction” and that the building was only pending issuance of an occupancy certificate.

The Court recorded that the reference made by respondents to the Government regarding physical submission of documents “does not hold the scrutiny of law” and stated that the physical submission was permissible. It further stated that “the vindicative acts of the respondents are evident from the way the occupancy certificate for a constructed building is denied all these days.”

The Court observed that “the duty of the respondents is to process the grant of occupancy certificate for the petitioners building in a routine and standard manner.” It held that the delay implied external influence and that “there is no justification for the acts of the respondent authorities in denying the occupancy certificate without any justifiable cause.”

Regarding the impact fee, the Court stated that no notice demanding the amount had been placed before it and recorded that “except for referring to it in the counter,” no material was produced.

With respect to the access slabs over the municipal drain, the Court observed that “laying slabs over the open drains without obstructing the free flow of drain water would not have any adverse implications or cause public inconvenience” and that such slabs “would ensure the safety of the citizens.”

Also Read: ‘State Has Moral Obligation’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Transgender Reservation In Public Employment Within 6 Months

The Court directed that “the respondent No.3 shall determine the impact fee and notify the petitioner to pay the said amount. Upon the petitioner paying the demanded impact fee, the 3rd respondent shall issue the occupancy certificate for the building constructed by the petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of the impact fee.”

“The 3rd respondent to determine and notify the exact amount of the impact fee payable by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.” With respect to access, the Court directed the respondents “not to disturb/demolish the slabs laid on the drain for ingress and egress to the building of the petitioners,” while requiring that “the petitioner shall ensure that there shall be no obstruction for free flow of drain water below.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Y. Nagi Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondents: Somisetty Ganesh Babu, Standing Counsel for VUDA and MUDA; A.S.C. Bose, Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations AP

Case Title: Yuvajana Shramika Rythu Congress Party & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010408592025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20853 of 2025
Bench: Justice Harinath N