Law Is Above You, No Matter How High: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Illegal Tourism Hub In Visakhapatnam CRZ

"The adage, 'Howsoever high you may be, the Law is above you' is valid in this day and time also. It is unfortunate that such contentions are being raised," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 23, 2026, ordered the demolition of an illegal tourism hub comprising a brewery and a resto-bar, holding that State entities enjoy no special exemption from the rule of law or statutory building requirements.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao observed that the structures, erected within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) of Visakhapatnam, were raised without any valid building permissions from the municipal authorities.

Court Rejects State Entity's Claim Of Immunity From Local Laws

The matter arose from two connected petitions: a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by a fisherwomen’s cooperative society challenging the constructions, and a writ petition by the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC) challenging a municipal demolition order. The APTDC had argued that the demolition order was improper as the structures were established by a government entity pursuant to State policy.

The Court took a stern view of this argument, noting that the Tourism Corporation appeared to be under a "mistaken impression" that the law would not apply to it. The bench emphasized that the law of the land applies equally to State entities and private citizens alike. It clarified that a State Corporation cannot claim special protection or exemption from the provisions of the law simply by virtue of its status.

"This Court must disabuse the Tourism Development Corporation from any such notion of special protection or exemption from the provisions of law."

Lack Of Building Permission Under APMC Act Renders Structures Illegal

While the APTDC claimed that the structures were "thatched rural hubs," the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) pointed out that no building permissions were obtained under Section 428 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act. The Court noted that even if the constructions were part of a tourism policy, statutory requirements for planning and building permissions cannot be bypassed.

The bench observed that the Commissioner of GVMC had issued a speaking order after finding that neither the leaseholder nor the APTDC had obtained any permission for erecting sea-facing structures, swimming pools, and sports facilities. Since the Corporation failed to produce any valid building permission at any stage of the proceedings, the Court held that the structures were inherently illegal.

"As no building permission was obtained by the Tourism Corporation, it must be held that all these structures are clearly illegal and require to be removed."

CRZ 2011 Notification Remains In Force Over Pending 2020 Regulations

Addressing the environmental concerns, the Court noted that the Ministry of Environment and Forests had confirmed that no permissions were granted for constructions in the disputed area. The leaseholders argued that the structures might have been permissible under the CRZ 2020 notification; however, the Court clarified that since the 2020 regulations have not been brought into force, the CRZ 2011 notification remains the governing law.

Under the CRZ 2011 framework, the area in question falls within the "No Development Zone" of CRZ-III, where such commercial tourism structures are prohibited. The bench emphasized that the land area from the High Tide Line to 500 meters on the landward side is strictly regulated to protect the seashore environment.

Principles Of Natural Justice Not Violated By Demolition Order

The APTDC had further challenged the demolition order on the grounds that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Corporation contended it was not given a "meaningful opportunity" of a personal hearing. However, the Court found that the GVMC had served multiple notices and the Corporation had even filed an explanation in April 2025, which was duly considered and rejected.

The bench held that since the Corporation was given adequate opportunity to show building permissions—which it failed to do—there was no procedural infirmity in the municipal action. The Court remarked that the Corporation had been treated on par with any other unauthorized builder because, in the eyes of the law, the lack of permission is a universal ground for enforcement action.

"The Tourism Development Corporation had been given a chance to show the necessary building permissions. No such permission had been placed before the GVMC authorities."

The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Tourism Corporation and allowed the PIL filed by the Fisherwomen Society. The Commissioner of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has been directed to implement the demolition order dated November 19, 2025, within three weeks.

Date of Decision: 23 April 2026