Thota Radhakrishna Murthy & Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

LISA GILL, CJ:

All the above said writ petitions were taken up together for hearing and adjudication at request and with consent of all learned counsel for parties, as there is a common thread which runs through all of them.

Petitioners in these writ petitions challenge passing of A.P. Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (05 of 2021) passed by State of Andhra Pradesh for carrying out amendments in A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, ‗APM Act‘) and A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 (for short, ‗APMC Act‘), which was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 09.06.2021 being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 243P, 243Q of the Constitution of India besides being violative of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/from the Jurisdiction of the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2015 (for short, ‗APM Rules, 2015‘).

Challenge has been laid to action of State for inclusion of areas as mentioned in Schedule XI of APM Act and Schedule to / under Section 3(3-A) of APMC Act into areas governed by Municipality/Municipal Corporation. Petitioners challenge insertion of Section 3(1-B) in APM Act and Section 3(3-A) of APMC Act and respective schedules attached.

Details of various Gram Panchayats sought to be included in a particular Municipality or Municipal Corporation as challenged in the subject writ petitions are as under:

Learned counsel for parties agreed that any further reference to individual petitions except as is in following paras, is not necessary because questions of law as raised are identical in all matters.

Brief facts as are necessary for adjudication of these matters is that the fourth petitioner in writ petition No. 19118 of 2021 along with others had earlier filed writ petition No. 3337 of 2020 being aggrieved of action of respondent State in issuing notification under Section 3(2)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, canceling notification in which Chintalapudi and other five villages are declared as Gram Panchayats / Villages with immediate effect in order to enable their merger into limits of Ponnur Municipality in Guntur District vide G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 28.01.2020 and consequential notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 28.01.2020, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1)(A) of the APM Rules, 2015. Petitioners were aggrieved of alteration of limits of Ponnur Municipality by inclusion of six villages including Chintalapudi Village.

Said writ petition was allowed by learned Single Bench vide decision, dated 06.03.2020. It was held that in terms of Rule 12(1) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007, a show cause notice granting ten days time is required for de-notification of any Gram Panchayat and its merger into another village or Municipality. Furthermore, as per sub-section (3) of Section 3 of APM Act, there is a requirement of issuance of notification for inclusion of local area or any portion thereof from a Municipality. Merger of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality was held to be contrary to procedure prescribed in law.

Thereafter, Ordinance No.17 of 2020, dated 31.12.2020 was issued by respondent State inserting a non obstante clause in sub-section 42-a of Section 2 of APM Act, 1965, and sub-section (1-B) to Section 3 thereof. Furthermore, sub-section (3-A) was inserted in Section 3 of APMC Act. Subsequently, the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No.5 of 2021) (for short, ‗Amendment Act‘) was enacted. Various writ petitions which had earlier been filed challenging Ordinance, dated 31.12.2020 i.e., W.P. No.5556 of 2021 and Batch were disposed of on 06.08.2021 granting liberty to petitioners therein to challenge Amendment Act of 2021. Present writ petitions were then subsequently filed, challenging Amendment Act.

W.P. No. 27487 of 2026 has now been filed on 22.09.2026 for declaring the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 5 of 2021) to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional on similar grounds as in other cases. This writ pertains to merger of five Gram Panchayat - respondent Nos.5 to 10 into Gudivada Municipality. It is submitted that earlier W.P. No. 2873 of 2020 filed in respect to merger of said villages into Gudivada Municipality was withdrawn on 01.09.2026 by filing memo dated 25.08.2026. Said writ petition, it is submitted, was withdrawn due to change in the regime. Therefore, present writ petition has now again been filed by petitioners who are ex-MPTCs and ex-Sarpanch. Objection was raised in respect to maintainability of this writ petition. There is no expression of opinion on maintainability of this writ petition, which was simply tagged along with present writ petitions which were pending adjudication. W.P. Nos. 27885 of 2026 and 27476 of 2026 were also tagged.

In the above said backdrop, it would be useful at this stage, for better appreciation of the matter to refer to relevant provisions of APM Act and APMC Act, prior and after amendment.

Questions raised for consideration in the writ petitions are:

Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing petitioners in W.P. No.19118 of 2021 led arguments which were supplemented by Mr. VSR Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel representing petitioners in W.P. No.27487 of 2026 and Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao, Mr. M. Srikanth, Mr. Raviteja Padiri. Said arguments were adopted by learned counsel in other writ petitions.

It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for petitioners that Article 243 of the Constitution of India does not permit of such legislation. It was submitted that Part IX of the Constitution of India came into being for strengthening the rural local body, the Gram Panchayat. ‗Panchayat‘ is defined in Article 243D to be an institution of self-government constituted under Article 243B, for rural areas. Article 243B provides for constitution of Panchayats. Governance of Panchayats is under an independent enactment i.e., under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, therefore, impugned action of State is illegal. It was argued that by way of impugned amendment, a Panchayat cannot be included in Municipalities / Municipal Corporation in this manner under the APM and APMC Act. Moreover, it is imperative that prior notice to be given to Gram Panchayats / residents of village as their rights are directly affected by such act.

It was asserted that unless and until there is first a de-notification of Gram Panchayat, it could not have been merged with Municipality / Municipal Corporation. No such action for de-notification of area was taken. Moreover, as per Sections 3(1-A) of APM Act and Section 3(2) of APMC Act, prior notification for merger is necessary, which has not been issued. Procedure laid down by APM Act and APMC Act could not have been bypassed with the amendments as caused.

It was further submitted that said amendment is beyond legislative competence of State. Violation of Article 243Q was asserted.

Another argument addressed on behalf of petitioners was that State cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own wrong inasmuch as non obstante clause has been inserted by way of Section 3 (1-B) stating that notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1A), the areas mentioned in column (3) of Schedule XI shall stand included and form part of area governed by Municipality shown in corresponding entry of column (2) of schedule where no elected body of Gram Panchayat constituted for such area is in existence.

Further, as per sub-section (1-B) (ii) of Section 3 of APM Act, all consequences arising out of inclusion of Gram Panchayats into Schedule including process of de-notifying Gram Panchayats under Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, shall be deemed to have been completed. Such deemed provisions are absolutely illegal and arbitrary and in fact contrary to constitutional provisions as well as APM Act and APMC Act itself.

While referring to judgment of Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation^{11.2006 (8) SCC 352} and other judgments on the aspect of holding timely elections, it was submitted that State is undoubtedly under a mandate to conduct timely elections within stipulated periods, thus, it cannot take advantage of its own wrong by first not holding elections on time and then take a stand that where there is no elected body, a Panchayat in question would be deemed to have merged with the Municipality / Municipal Corporation, as the case may be.

Learned counsel for petitioners in W.P. No.19409 of 2021 stated that insofar as Rajam Mandal is concerned, there are 20 Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTC). Four MPTCs are earmarked for Rajam Gram Panchayat, one for Saradhi Gram Panchayat, one for Kothavalasa Gram Panchayat and one for Kondampeta and Guravam Gram Panchayat. In event of formation of Rajam Nagar Panchayat, re-delimitation of area covered in Rajam MPTCs and Santhakaviti MPTCs and respective zilla parishad territorial constituencies will have to be done under District Formation Act, 1974. Rajam Nagar Municipality came into being on 24.03.2020.

Reliance was placed by learned counsel for parties on judgments of Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in Champa Lal v. State of Rajasthan ^{22.(2018) 16 SCC 356} , Bhanumati & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh^{33.2010 (12) SCC 1} , Prof. B.K. Chandrashekar and another v. State of Karnataka^{44.AIR 1999 Kant 461} and D. Suryanarayana and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others^{55.(2000) 2 ALT 787}.

Learned Additional Advocate General refuted arguments raised on behalf of writ petitioners and submitted that amendments are within legislative competence of State. There is absolutely no violation of Part IX or Part IX-A of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 243-A, 243-B, 243-C, 243-P, 243-Q, 243-R, 243-S and 243-T. It was denied that there is any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or that the Amendment Act is contrary to provisions of the said Act(s). Impugned amendments made to municipal laws are within the constitutional parameters. State has power to legislate in respect of local government, local authorities under Entry 5 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.

There is no question of violation of constitutional provisions by insertion of non-obstante clause, as urged by learned counsel for the petitioners. In fact, the amendment is a means of realization of constitutional mandate. It was further submitted that as per judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana^{66.(2017) 1 SCC 283}, once the defect which led to a judgment being rendered, is removed by way of legislation, the same is liable to be upheld, and it cannot be said that action of State is an act of overreach or that the amendment is a colourable legislation. It is always open to the legislature to remove the defect which has been pointed out by Court by amending the applicable provisions of law.

It was also argued that there is no requirement of issuance of separate notifications for either de-notification of Gram Panchayats or their merger with municipalities / municipal corporations in view of specific provisions of the Act. Notification of the Act itself is sufficient and moreover, the same being a legislative Act, does not require issuance of prior notice to petitioners or stakeholders as argued on behalf of petitioners.

Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that it was a painstaking exercise which had been undertaken for identification of areas to be merged in the different Municipalities / Municipal Corporations. The process of identification of areas was started much earlier. The proposed Gram Panchayats which have acquired urban characteristics and peri-urban areas, which had potential and robust urban features, were identified by collectors and district magistrates in consultation with various stakeholders and recommendations for merger into adjoining urban local bodies and for constitution of new local bodies had been received. The process had started in the year 2017 and taken forward in 2019. It was found that to improve urbanization in Andhra Pradesh, it was required to identify new growth engines in this regard. Vide memo dated 25.01.2017, a district-level committee was constituted to submit proposals along with suggestions of district-level committee to state-level committee. Members of the said district-level committee were as under:

Data was collected from the concerned areas and recommendations of the Committee were received in respect to various districts. Learned Additional Advocate General at the time of arguments produced original records in respect to these exercises qua different municipalities and municipal corporations. Views, suggestions and objections had been duly called for from the residents. It was urged that in this view of the matter, argument raised on behalf of petitioners that it was merely on whims and fancies that process of inclusion of Gram Panchayats in Municipalities / Municipal Corporation was undertaken is absolutely refuted from a perusal of the record. Moreover, said exercise undertaken by State cannot be negated on account of order dated 06.03.2020, passed by this High Court in W.P. No.3337 of 2020, which was primarily passed on account of requisite notice(s) not being issued in accordance with prevailing applicable provisions.

State, it was urged, is committed to carry out its duty of planned development of State and that there would be no adverse impact on residents of area as argued. Benefits which are available in Municipalities / Municipal Corporation would become available to them. Therefore, aspect of depravation of benefit of a scheme in rural areas cannot be a ground to set aside the amendment. Living conditions of citizens are sought to be made better for their better prospects in life and to make citizens self-reliant. It was thus prayed that all the writ petitions be dismissed.

Reliance was placed upon judgment passed by High Court of Telangana in Jangili Sagar v. State of Telangana^{77.AIR 2019 AP 30}. It was submitted that challenge had been raised in said writ petitions in respect to similar provisions in Telangana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, and Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965, on identical grounds. These writ petitions were dismissed on 8.3.2019 and same was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court with SLP No. 8921 of 2019 filed challenging the same being dismissed. Reliance was also placed upon judgments of Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana (supra) and State Of Punjab v Tehal Singh^{88.2002 (2) SCC 7}. Dismissal of writ petitions was sought.

We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the files carefully with their assistance.

Part IX (Panchayats) was introduced by 73^rd Amendment, whereas Part IX-A (Municipalities) was introduced by 74^th Amendment, both in 1992. This step was taken to strengthen urban local bodies which, it was felt, had become weak and ineffective on account of a variety of reasons, including the failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersession, and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. To carry forward mandate of the Constitution, APM Act and APMC Act were promulgated.

At the outset, it is useful to refer to some of the relevant Articles of the Constitution of India and provisions of the subject enactments.

Article 243P, of the Constitution of India reads as under:

Article 243Q providing the composition of Municipalities reads as under:

Section 3 of APM Act is reproduced as under:

Section 3 of APMC Act is reproduced as under:

Section 2 (42-a) of APM Act defines transitional area or smaller urban area as under:

Panchayat is defined as an institution (by whatever name called) of self-government constituted under Article 243B for rural areas. ‗Gram Panchayat‘ in Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is defined as the body constituted for the local administration of a village under the Act under Section 2(17).

A bare perusal of Article 243Q reveals that there is no bar upon the State to include Gram Panchayats in a Municipality or Municipal Corporation as may be the case. Article 243Q (2) specifically provides that Governor may having regard to various factors mentioned therein specify by public notification a transitional area or smaller urban area or a larger urban area. Therefore, a specific power has been conferred upon the State in this respect.

By way of impugned amendment, Section 3 (1-B) was inserted providing that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A), areas mentioned in column (3) of Schedule XI shall stand included and form part of area governed by Municipality shown in corresponding entry of column (2) of schedule where no elected body of Gram Panchayat constituted for such area is in existence.

It has further been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other laws for the time being in force, all consequences arising out of the inclusion of the Gram Panchayats into the Schedule including the process of de-notifying the Gram Panchayats under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, shall be deemed to have been completed.

Therefore, it is apparent that this exercise has been carried out by way of legislative act i.e., the activity of inclusion of Panchayats in Municipalities / Municipal Corporations. Learned counsel for petitioners were unable to point out any clause in the Constitution of India prohibiting inclusion or exclusion of areas of Gram Panchayats into a transitional area or smaller urban area or a larger urban area by the State.

It is a settled position that constitutionality of an enactment would be presumed unless and until shown to be otherwise. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd.,^{99.(1997) 2 SCC 453} that the Court should not approach an enactment with a view to pick holes or search for defects of drafting much less inexactitude of language employed and that Court has to start with a presumption of constitutionality.

In an identical situation, Telangana High Court in Jangili Sagar v. State of Telangana (supra), rejected the challenge to Section 3 of Telangana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and Sections 2 and 3 of Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 on identical grounds. It was thus held that impugned amendment carried out by State of Telangana was well within its legislative competence.

Argument raised that present Amendment Act is violative of Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India or the parent Act itself and is beyond legislative competence of State, is not substantiated from material on record or on the basis of arguments addressed before us. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetolia^{1010.(2022) 12 SCC 185}, being seized of an order passed by High Court of Rajasthan, whereby notification declaring one of Gram Panchayats as Municipal Board, being set aside while dealing with similar challenge referred to Article 243ZF of the Constitution of India. Article 243ZF provides for continuance of existing laws in municipalities. It is held as under:

It has neither been argued not any material placed on record to show that the amendment thereof run contrary to the object enshrined behind part IX-A of the Constitution or that the same will weaken the institution or local Government. There is no merit in the arguments raised on behalf of petitioners that merging of Gram Panchayat by way of Amendment Act is an infringement or in violation of the constitutional mandate or is impermissible on account of a Gram Panchayat being an independent local body.

Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in case of Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat^{1111.(2022) 15 SCC 364} was considering vires of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, on the ground that State law has provided more than one representative from a single ward and it is thus inconsistent with Articles 243-R and 243-S of the Constitution. Said challenge was negated. It was held that the power of State legislature in the light of enabling provisions provided in the Constitution with regard to framing of laws concerning legislature cannot be whittled down by way of restrictive interpretation.

Vehement arguments were raised by learned counsel for petitioners that by way of insertion of an non-obstante clause in Section 3 of APM Act and APMC Act cannot take away the requirement of issuance of separate notifications and that it was essential to have first de-notified the Gram Panchayat by way of a notification and thereafter issue notification of inclusion in Municipality / Municipal Corporation is equally devoid of any merit. As noted in foregoing paras, Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetolia (supra), in this respect held that State is competent to legislate in respect of Municipalities as local Government falls in Entry 5 of List II of seventh Schedule, only limitation being that provisions of State Act cannot be inconsistent with mandate of scheme of Part IX-A of the Constitution. It was held in the said matter that:

Division Bench of Telangana High Court in the case of Jangili Sagar v. State of Telangana (supra) while deciding question as to whether amending Act No.04 of 2018 under its consideration was against texture of parent Act i.e., Municipal Corporation Act and Municipalities Act held as under:

We are in respectful agreement with above said decision of Telangana High Court.

Much stress had been laid by learned counsel for petitioners on the argument that Amendment Act is a piece of colourable legislation with a view to overreach decision, dated 06.03.2020 passed in W.P. No.3337 of 2020 by this Court. In our considered opinion, this argument is also devoid of any merit because it is a settled position that it is always open to legislature to remove the defect pointed by Court or amend the definition or any other provision of legislation in question. In this respect, gainful reference can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana (supra).

In respect to argument that a notice was required to be issued to representatives of Gram Panchayats or the villagers is also devoid of any merit and hence rejected. Once it is found that action has been taken by way of a legislation, a separate notice as such would not be required. Reliance by learned counsel for petitioners on case of V.K. Kapoor v. State of Haryana^{1212.2011 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 15} rendered by a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, is misplaced, for the reason that in an appeal challenging said order before Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7002-7004 of 2011 titled State of Haryana v. V.K. Kapoor, Hon‘ble the Supreme Court opined that said order was rendered redundant in view of subsequent developments and that observations therein would not have any effect on other pending cases on similar issues before the High Court.

This fact was duly noted in a subsequent decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court itself in case of Som Prakash v. State of Haryana^{1313.2015 SCC OnLine P & H 6010} whereby challenge was to a notification, whereby Gram Panchayat Radaur was declared to be a Municipality by merging two villages, being violative of Section 2A of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. Reference was made to Division Bench Judgment of same High Court in CWP No.17225 of 2008 titled Gram Panchayat, Manne Majra v. State of Punjab decided on 02.04.2012 wherein it was specifically held that establishment of a municipal committee is a legislative function.

In case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetolia (supra) itself, Hon‘ble the Supreme Court held that there is no requirement of a notice to be issued. While referring to its decision in the case of Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee^{1414.(1980) 2 SCC 295}, it was held that maxim of ‗audi alteram partem’ does not become applicable to the case by necessary implication.

In case of State Of Punjab v Tehal Singh^{1515.2002 (2) SCC 7}, Hon‘ble the Supreme Court while considering power of State Government to issue notifications regarding establishment of Gram Sabha area and constitution of Gram Sabhas held that power exercisable under Sections 3 and 4 of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, is legislative in character and provisions of Act do not provide for any opportunity of hearing to residents before any area falling under a particular Gram Sabha is excluded or included in another Gram Sabha.

At this juncture, we take note of the fact that exercise for determining areas to be merged was indeed undertaken by the State. Decision dated 06.03.2020 passed in W.P. No.3337 of 2020 of this High Court setting aside G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 28.01.2020, and G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 28.01.2020, cannot wipe out the exercise undertaken by State in this respect. Writ Petition was in fact allowed on the ground that a show cause notice granting ten days notice was not issued, and furthermore, necessary notification was not issued in accordance with provisions of law.

We have perused the original record produced in Court in respect to consideration of material for merging of Gram Panchayats into Municipalities / Municipal Corporations, i.e., in respect to population of area, density of population, revenue generation, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, economic importance and other factors. In respect to W.P. No. 19409 of 2021, Rajam Nagar Panchayat, we take note of averments on behalf of State that Rajam Nagar Panchayat was constituted in 2005 itself vide G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 07.10.2005, which was however set aside by this Court in W.P. No.23727, 23732 and 23736 of 2005 & W.P. No.6669 of 2006, while giving liberty to Government to reconsider the issue, take fresh decision and issue appropriate orders in accordance with law. Rajam Nagar Panchayat was stated to be upgraded as Grade –III Municipality vide G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 24.03.2021 of MA & UD Department, since it fulfilled the criteria of population of above 40,000 and revenue of more than Rs.60 lakhs besides other criteria. We thus find no merit in argument as raised on behalf of petitioners for declaring Amendment Act to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

There is also no cause to set aside the Amendment Act on the ground that residents shall be deprived of benefit of various schemes meant for rural areas. It is an admitted position that the step of inclusion in Municipality is for the betterment and future development / urbanization of area leading to better opportunities for residents.

In the given factual matrix, all the questions as raised for consideration are answered as thus; Amendment Act is upheld and is not violative of Article 14, 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India or contrary to 73^rd and 74^th amendment to the Constitution of India; Said Amendment Act cannot be termed to be an example of legislative overreach or a colourable legislation. As discussed in foregoing paras, in view of action being a legislative act and within the legislative competence of State, there was no requirement of separate notifications for de-notification of Gram Panchayats and then another for their inclusion in Municipalities / Municipal Corporations. Rule of audi alteram partem was not required to be observed in present circumstances as discussed in foregoing paras.

Learned counsel for petitioners were unable to point out any ground for setting aside amendment Act No.05 of 2021. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, we do not find any ground to cause interference in these matters in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any including implead applications, shall stand closed.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of aforementioned connected cases.