Place Of Worship Can't Be Constructed Without Collector's Prior Approval And Proof Of Title: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a place of worship cannot be cannot constructed without prior permission by the district collector and other statutory land approvals establishing proof of title. [2026 LiveLaw (2026) 155]

In doing so the court restrained further construction of a CSI Church at Maanchala Village, Mantralayam Mandal, holding that it did not comply with statutory requirements under AP Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules and AP Panchayat Raj Act.

Disposing of a writ petition challenging the construction of the place of worship, the Court held that statutory approvals cannot be bypassed merely because an earlier place of worship allegedly existed at the site.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao disposed of the writ petition with directions restraining further construction until the statutory requirements are fulfilled.

The Court observed:

"A perusal of the pleadings as well as the material placed before this Court would reveal two facts – Firstly, no building permission has been given by the local bodies nor has the necessary approval, under the provisions of Rule 26 (2) of the said Rules, has been obtained. Further, respondent No.6 claims title over the property, by way of possession and not on account of any document of alienation, given in favour of respondent No.6 or Church of South India, which is said to be supervising this place of worship.

This provision requires prior permission to be obtained from the District Collector before any construction can be taken up. Such prior permission has not been obtained before construction had been taken up in the disputed site.

The local body, within which the disputed site falls is Manchala Gram Panchayat. Section 121 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 stipulates that no building can be constructed or re-constructed and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the permission of the Gram Panchayat granted in accordance with the provisions of any Rules or bye-laws made under this Act.

The scheme of the Act is quite clear and requires such applications to be made before construction is initiated. In the absence of such prior application, it would not be appropriate for this Court to regularize any construction made without such applications being made."

The petitioners alleged that the person overseeing the construction had begun building a CSI Church on government land in Survey No. 137/2 at Maanchala Village without obtaining the mandatory approval of the District Collector or building permission from the Gram Panchayat. They further contended that the site was reserved as an open space in an approved layout and could not be used for such construction.

The official authorities and the person in charge of the construction, however, contended that a place of worship had existed at the site for several years but had fallen into disrepair, necessitating reconstruction. They also claimed that applications had been made for the required approvals and that construction had already been halted pursuant to the High Court's interim order.

Examining the record, the Court found that no prior approval or building permission had been granted and that respondent No. 6 claimed title solely on the basis of possession, without any document of alienation.

It further noted that construction under Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules 14 and 16 of the 2002 Rules requires prior permission and can be undertaken only on approved building plots or layouts, whereas the disputed site was an open space in an approved layout.

Holding that construction undertaken in violation of these statutory requirements could not be regularised, the Court rejected the respondents' stand.

Accordingly, the Court restrained any further construction until the respondent establishes title over the property and secures the statutory approvals. It also directed the competent authority to issue notice to the writ petitioners before deciding the pending applications.

"For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the official respondents not to permit any construction in the said land until and unless approval has been obtained from the District Collector, under Rule 26 and after the respondent No.6 is able to demonstrate title over the property," the court said. 

Case Title: P. Karna & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13543 of 2022

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ponnada Sree Vyas

Counsel for the Respondents: Venkata Reddy Gajjala, Government Pleader for Revenue; Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development & K. B. Ramanna Dora.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (2026) 155