No Collector Approval, No Title: Andhra Pradesh HC Bars Church Construction in Mantralayam Village Open Space

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed that no construction of the CSI Church in Maanchala village, Mantralayam Mandal, shall proceed until the District Collector grants approval under Rule 26 of the AP Gram Panchayat Land Development Rules and title over the property is demonstrated by the sixth respondent.

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, sitting singly at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, disposed of W.P. No. 13543 of 2022 on 23 June 2026, holding that construction of a place of worship at Survey No. 137/2, Maanchala village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District cannot proceed without prior approval from the District Collector under Rule 26(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002 and without building permission from the local body. The court also found that the sixth respondent, Rev. Vedanayakam of CSI Church, had not demonstrated any documentary title over the site, which the official respondents identified as an open space in an approved layout meant for weaker sections housing plots. The petition was filed by two residents of Adoni, Kurnool District, challenging the construction as illegal.

The Dispute Before the Court

Petitioners P. Karna and Chakali Narasimhulu, both residents of Adoni, Kurnool District, moved this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus. Their grievance was that the sixth respondent, Rev. Vedanayakam, was putting up a CSI Church structure at Survey No. 137/2, Maanchala village, Mantralayam Mandal without obtaining the permissions mandated by law.

The petitioners contended that the construction was illegal on three distinct grounds: the required approval from the District Collector for a place of worship had not been obtained; no building permission from the local body had been secured; and the site formed part of an open space reserved in an approved layout developed for weaker sections, making it ineligible for building activity in the first place.

Along with the main writ petition, the petitioners filed interlocutory applications seeking a direction to stop further construction. The court had issued an interim order on 05.05.2022. The sixth respondent, in turn, filed applications seeking vacation of that interim order and dismissal of the writ petition. The Maanchala Village Panchayat, represented by its Panchayat Secretary, separately sought leave to file a counter affidavit.

What the Counter Affidavits Disclosed

The official respondents — the State of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collector, the District Panchayat Officer, the Tahsildar and the Gram Panchayat — filed counter affidavits. The sixth respondent also filed a counter. The substance of these affidavits, as summarised by the court, was that a pre-existing place of worship had fallen into disrepair and dilapidated, prompting a fresh construction.

Rev. Vedanayakam claimed the place of worship had been in existence since 1982. The official respondents did not confirm any specific date of existence but acknowledged that some place of worship was present at the site. Crucially, the official respondents took the position that the site in question was an open space within an approved layout and not a plot set apart for construction.

The sixth respondent stated he had applied to the Gram Panchayat for building permission and had also sought approval from the Collector under the proviso to Rule 26(2) of the 2002 Rules. He further stated that construction had stopped pursuant to the interim order of 05.05.2022.

The Statutory Framework Applied

The court examined the applicable rules and statute in detail. Rule 26(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002 provides that no site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes without the prior approval of the District Collector. The Collector may refuse such approval if, in his opinion, the use of the site for the proposed construction is likely to endanger public peace and order, but only after giving the applicant an opportunity to show cause.

The court stated plainly that this provision requires prior permission before any construction is commenced. That permission had not been obtained before construction began at the disputed site.

Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was also engaged. It stipulates that no building can be constructed, reconstructed, or altered without the permission of the Gram Panchayat granted in accordance with the applicable rules or bye-laws. That building permission was similarly absent.

Within the 2002 Rules, Rule 14 requires an application for building permission before construction, and Rule 16 prohibits use of any site for building activity unless it forms part of an approved layout or has been approved as a building plot. The official respondents had taken the stand that Survey No. 137/2 was an open space in an approved layout, placing it outside the category of sites eligible for building activity.

The sixth respondent's counsel raised the argument that Rule 26 contains a deeming provision under which building activity can be commenced once the local body fails to respond to an application. The court acknowledged that this contention merited consideration. However, it found a threshold problem: no document had been placed before the court to show that a building application had been made before construction commenced. The court held that in the absence of such a prior application, it would not be appropriate to regularise any construction made without such applications being filed.

The Question of Title

Separately, the court observed that the sixth respondent's claim to the property rested on possession alone. No document of alienation in favour of Rev. Vedanayakam or Church of South India had been produced. The scheme of the Act and the 2002 Rules, the court explained, requires an applicant for building permission to demonstrate prima facie title by submitting necessary documents.

Without any documentary title, the twin deficiencies — no Collector approval and no building permission — could not be cured merely by the passage of time or a claim of historical occupation.

The court expressly declined to rule on whether there was any construction at the site in 1999 or who was in possession until 1999. Those were treated as issues of fact left open for the competent authority to examine if and when formal applications are made.

The Direction on Notice to Petitioners

The court also addressed the petitioners' position once applications are eventually made. Because the petitioners had raised the issues in this writ petition, the court directed that they must be given notice before any permissions are granted by the District Collector or the Gram Panchayat. This would allow them to place necessary material before the authority before any order permitting construction is passed.

The direction ensures that the petitioners' objections are not bypassed administratively after the writ petition is disposed of.

Order

The writ petition was disposed of. The court directed the official respondents not to permit any construction in Survey No. 137/2, Maanchala village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District, until and unless approval has been obtained from the District Collector under Rule 26 of the 2002 Rules and until the sixth respondent demonstrates title over the property by documentary evidence. Any construction can only commence after building permission is thereafter granted by the local body. The petitioners are entitled to notice before any such permissions are considered.

All pending miscellaneous applications, including the interlocutory applications filed by both sides, were closed as a consequence of the disposal of the writ petition. No order as to costs was made.