Commissioner Is Not a Civil Judge — Cannot Adjudicate Title in Building Permission Cases : Andhra Pradesh High Court Declines Interference in Land Ownership Dispute

“The 2nd respondent had no authority to give a finding on the title of a property by assuming the role of a Civil Judge”, In a significant judgment dated 10th September 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, in WP No. 27480 of 2024 and Contempt Case No. 1309 of 2025, ruled that the Municipal Commissioner (GVMC) did not exceed jurisdiction in issuing building permissions based on prima facie title documents, even though a civil title dispute is pending adjudication.

Justice Harinath N, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Jampana Ravi Kishore and another, clarified that municipal authorities are not competent to adjudicate complex title issues, and their satisfaction of possession and documentary proof is sufficient to process building permission applications. The Court also declined to punish municipal officials for contempt, holding that the interim orders had not been violated.

“Possession and Prima Facie Title Are Sufficient for Building Permissions — Civil Disputes Must Be Resolved in Courts”: High Court Upholds Commissioner’s Order

The petitioners challenged the GVMC’s impugned order (Rc.No.e-office 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1 dated 29.05.2024), which granted building permission to Respondent No. 6 — Legend Estates Pvt Ltd — over a portion of land measuring 608.88 sq. meters out of the total 1743 sq. yards in T.S. No.1031, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners claimed exclusive ownership over the entire extent, having purchased it via a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2015.

They alleged that the builder had obtained permission fraudulently through a development agreement executed by Respondent No.5, who, they contended, had no legal title over the property. They further claimed that the Commissioner’s action ignored previous orders of the High Court in WP No. 25966 of 1998 and WA No. 1359 of 2004, which had dismissed similar claims by Respondent No.5.

The Court, however, disagreed with the contention that the Commissioner had acted outside his jurisdiction. It held: “The 2nd respondent has categorically held that the High Court or GVMC cannot decide the issue of title. However, he has considered various documents submitted and passed a speaking order dated 29.05.2024 in terms of the directions of this Court.”

“Courts Cannot Interfere When Prima Facie Satisfaction on Possession and Documents Exists”: No Mandamus Against Municipal Decision on Building Permission

The core legal question was whether the GVMC Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction in granting the building permission to the 6th respondent based on disputed ownership.

The Court noted that none of the parties — including the petitioners and respondent No.5 — had secured a civil court decree of title over the property. The previous cases decided by the High Court — including WP No. 25966 of 1998 and WA No. 1359 of 2004 — dealt primarily with possession and injunctions, not title.

The Court observed: “Insofar as the title of the property is concerned, neither the petitioners nor their vendors nor the 5th respondent nor their vendors have adjudicated the issue of title on merits before any Court of law.”

Furthermore, it remarked that: “The permission granted to the 6th respondent for construction was based on the development agreement dated 09.08.2012.”

The Court cited judgments including K. Pavan Raj v. MCH and Dr. M. Satchinandan Rao v. State of Telangana, which upheld that municipal authorities can act upon prima facie title and possession without requiring a conclusive title declaration from civil courts.

“Interim Orders Cannot Freeze Completed Construction”: Contempt Dismissed, Civil Title Suit is the Appropriate Remedy

A parallel Contempt Petition (CC No. 1309 of 2025) was filed by the petitioners alleging violation of the Court’s interim order dated 26.11.2024, which restrained interference with their possession.

The Court noted that by the time interim orders were passed, the construction was already nearing completion, and the land was not vacant as alleged.

“By the date of passing of the interim order the 6th respondent had constructed a building… thus, there is force in the contention of the 6th respondent that the construction proceeded after obtaining requisite permission.”

Accordingly, the contempt case was also dismissed, with the Court noting that interim orders had not been breached, and the proper forum for resolving ownership claims was the civil court, where the petitioners had already filed O.S. No. 121 of 2025 for permanent injunction.

“Building Permission Does Not Amount to Title Declaration — Municipality Must Rely on Documentary Evidence, Not Adjudicate Ownership”

In refusing to cancel the construction permission or entertain title arguments in writ jurisdiction, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the principle that municipal authorities are not civil courts, and their actions, based on documentary scrutiny and possession, cannot be nullified unless gross illegality or jurisdictional error is shown.

The Court’s dismissal of the petition and the contempt case underscores a judicial reluctance to interfere in administrative permissions unless there is clear legal violation — and emphasizes that land ownership disputes must be resolved through full civil trials, not through writ proceedings.

Date of Decision: 10.09.2025