The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that a rival in the real-estate business lacks locus standi under Article 226 to seek cancellation of layout approvals granted to competitors, especially where procedural compliance and opportunity of hearing are established. The judgment follows established Supreme Court precedents and will serve as binding authority for subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/14280/2025 of Kilari Hariprasad, Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CNR APHC010282782025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HARINATH. N |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice Harinath. N) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding locus standi in rival trade matters |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law, Property Law, Urban Development |
| Questions of Law | Whether a real-estate rival has locus standi to challenge layout approvals granted to a competitor on grounds of procedural lapse or alleged benami transactions under Article 226. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd v. State of Haryana; C.B. Gautam v. Union of India; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar; Haji Bashir Ahmed |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedent on locus standi in trade rivalry (Jasbhai Motibhai), requirements for natural justice (C.B. Gautam), effect of agreement of sale cum GPA on title (Suraj Lamp) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner and Respondent 4 own adjacent plots earmarked for real estate development. Petitioner objected to layout approval granted to Respondent 4, alleging blockage of road access and benami transactions. Statutory authority considered objections and issued layout approval after hearing both sides and verifying documents. The property in question was transferred well before objections were raised. The petitioner suppressed pending litigation related to road access. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar; Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd; C.B. Gautam v. Union of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a rival in trade/real estate lacks locus standi to challenge a competitor’s layout approval under Article 226 solely on grounds of alleged procedural violations or benami transactions.
- Reaffirms that writ relief cannot bypass specialized statutory regimes, such as the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act’s adjudication mechanisms.
- Lays down that when statutory authorities afford a hearing and issue a speaking order considering all objections, courts will not interfere unless clear illegality or arbitrariness is shown.
- Establishes that suppression of material facts by the petitioner (including pending litigation) is fatal to seeking discretionary relief under Article 226.
- Integration of internal roads with neighboring layouts, as per amended land development rules, cannot be insisted where lands cease to be contiguous due to lawful transfers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first ascertained the compliance by statutory authority with the earlier interim direction to hear both petitioner and respondent before deciding layout approval.
- It found a speaking order was passed and both parties had ample opportunity to present their contentions and documents.
- The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai to reiterate that trade rivals do not have locus standi to challenge government actions conferring business advantage on competitors.
- It relied on Suraj Lamp and Industries to clarify that agreement of sale cum GPA does not create legal title, and any assertion regarding benami transactions must be pursued through the mechanisms under the Benami Transactions Act, not writ jurisdiction.
- The Court observed that the petitioner suppressed earlier writ proceedings relating to the same subject matter, amounting to material non-disclosure.
- On the question of internal road integration, it interpreted the amended Rule 11(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub Division) Rules, 2017, finding no violation, as the lands of the petitioner and respondent are not contiguous.
- Ultimately, it concluded there was no arbitrariness, illegality, or colorable exercise of power by the authorities, and thus no ground to invoke writ jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Claimed to be owner of land contiguous with Respondent 4’s property, alleging blockage of internal road by Respondent 4.
- Argued that the layout approval was granted without due consideration of objections, in violation of amended land development rules.
- Alleged that the transfer of land to the 5th respondent was a benami transaction effected only to defeat the petitioner’s claim for internal road access.
- Contended that statutory authorities ignored Supreme Court precedent on natural justice (C.B. Gautam) and title transfer (Suraj Lamp).
- Sought direction to initiate action under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.
Respondents:
- Asserted that layout approval accorded strict compliance with the relevant rules and after hearing all parties.
- Denied that agreement of sale cum GPA was executed to defeat the petitioner’s rights; cited earlier agreement dated 05.06.2024.
- Pointed out that the property at issue, now with the 5th respondent, fell outside the approved layout.
- Alleged that the petitioner suppressed crucial facts, including a pending writ petition (WP.No.1841/2025) involving the very road access.
- Argued that procedural challenge under writ jurisdiction is not available to a business rival and cited locus standi precedent (Jasbhai Motibhai Desai).
- Stated that benami allegations must be tried before the prescribed statutory adjudicating authority.
Respondent Authorities:
- Confirmed that all due procedure was followed and a speaking order passed after affording hearing to both sides.
- Asserted no illegality in layout approval, which conformed with applicable rules and road plans.
Factual Background
The petitioner and respondent 4 are real-estate developers owning neighboring properties at Dakamarri Village, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner objected to the grant of layout approval to respondent 4, claiming denial of road access and procedural lapses, and also alleging that a transfer of adjacent land was a benami transaction orchestrated to deny the petitioner access. The statutory authority considered objections from both parties, conducted a hearing, and granted layout approval to respondent 4. The petitioner filed the present writ petition after unsuccessfully contesting the approval through administrative channels and failed to disclose earlier related litigation regarding road access.
Statutory Analysis
- The Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub Division) Rules, 2017 (as amended by GOMs.No.3 dated 09.01.2025), specifically Rule 11(3), were interpreted; the Court found no violation as the requirement for integrating internal roads with neighboring land applies only where such contiguity exists.
- The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, was invoked by the petitioner, but the Court held that remedies under the Act must be sought via the statutory adjudicating authority and not under writ jurisdiction.
- The Court also cited the principle of affording reasonable opportunity of hearing as enshrined under Article 226 and as interpreted in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and follows established Supreme Court precedents regarding locus standi of rivals in trade under Article 226 and the essential requirements for valid exercise of administrative discretion.