Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds 2021 Act merging Gram Panchayats into Municipalities and Corporations by legislation

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date of judgment: 1 October 2026
Case: WP/27097/2021
Parties: Yeddula Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Bench: LISA GILL, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Outcome: Dismissed

Summary

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a Division Bench judgment of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 5 of 2021). The Court held that the Act, which places named Gram Panchayat areas inside Municipalities and Municipal Corporations by way of Schedules, is within the legislative competence of the State and is not contrary to Articles 14, 243P or 243Q of the Constitution.

The Act, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 09.06.2021, amended the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994. It inserted Section 3(1-B) and new Schedules X and XI in the 1965 Act, and Section 3(3-A) with a Schedule in the 1994 Act. The listed areas stand included in the named Municipality or Corporation where no elected body of the Gram Panchayat is in existence, and all consequences of inclusion, including de-notification under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, are deemed completed. The writ petitions concerned Gram Panchayats in Ponnur, Srikakulam, Tadepalligudem, Rajamahendravaram, Palakole, Kandukur, Rajam, Bheemavaram, Gudur, Bhimavaram and Gudivada, along with a general challenge to the Act (W.P. No. 27885 of 2026).

The challenge arose after the learned Single Bench allowed W.P. No. 3337 of 2020 on 06.03.2020, setting aside the merger of Chintalapudi and five other villages into Ponnur Municipality for want of the notice and notification required by law. Thereafter Ordinance No.17 of 2020, dated 31.12.2020 was issued, and subsequently the Amendment Act was enacted. Earlier petitions against the Ordinance (W.P. No. 5556 of 2021 and batch) were disposed of on 06.08.2021 with liberty to challenge the Act.

The question before the court

Whether the Amendment Act is within the legislative competence of the State and consistent with Articles 14, 243P and 243Q and the 73rd and 74th Amendments
Whether the Act is colourable legislation or an overreach of the Court's decision of 06.03.2020
Whether separate notifications for de-notifying Gram Panchayats and for their inclusion, and prior notice to villagers and elected representatives, were mandatory

What each side argued

Petitioners: Part IX of the Constitution strengthens rural local bodies, Panchayats are governed by the Panchayat Raj Act, and a Panchayat cannot be merged into a Municipality or Corporation in this manner; Article 243Q was said to be violated and the amendment said to be beyond legislative competence.
Petitioners: A Gram Panchayat had first to be de-notified, and prior notification under Section 3(1-A) of the Municipalities Act and Section 3(2) of the Corporations Act was necessary; the deeming provisions and non obstante clauses bypass the prescribed procedure, and prior notice to residents and elected representatives was mandatory.
Petitioners: The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong by not holding Panchayat elections on time and then treating areas with no elected body as merged (Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation was cited); the Act was also said to be colourable legislation. Counsel in W.P. No. 19409 of 2021 added that MPTC and zilla parishad constituencies in Rajam Mandal would need re-delimitation.
State: The Act falls within State legislative power over local government (Entry 5, List II), does not violate Part IX or IX-A, and gives effect to the constitutional mandate; removing a defect pointed out by a Court is permissible (Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana).
State: No separate notifications or prior notice are needed for a legislative act; the areas were identified after a process begun in 2017 through district-level committees and the original records were produced; benefits available in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations would become available to residents; reliance was placed on Jangili Sagar v. State of Telangana and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh.

The court's decision

The Court noted that Part IX (Panchayats) and Part IX-A (Municipalities) were introduced in 1992 to strengthen local bodies. A bare perusal of Article 243Q showed to the Court no bar on the State including Gram Panchayat areas in a Municipality or Municipal Corporation, and Article 243Q(2) expressly empowers the Governor to specify transitional, smaller urban and larger urban areas. Petitioners could not point to any constitutional provision prohibiting inclusion or exclusion of Gram Panchayat areas. The exercise was carried out by a legislative act, and a statute is presumed constitutional (State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd.).

On competence and Article 243Q(2), the argument was held not substantiated from material on record or arguments addressed. It relied on State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetolia, where the Supreme Court held that Part IX-A does not take away the State Legislature's competence over local government and that two separate notifications are not contemplated, and on Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat. No material showed that the amendment runs contrary to the object of Part IX-A or weakens local government, and a Gram Panchayat being an independent body did not prevent its merger by statute. It expressed respectful agreement with the Telangana High Court in Jangili Sagar, which rejected a similar challenge to parallel Telangana amendments and noted that rules under the parent Acts are subordinate legislation, so the non obstante clauses override them.

The argument of colourable legislation was rejected: it is open to the legislature to remove a defect pointed out by a Court (Cheviti Venkanna Yadav). The 06.03.2020 decision turned on the lack of a ten-day show cause notice and the required notification, and could not wipe out the State's exercise of identifying areas. The Court also held that no prior notice was needed because the action was legislative; V.K. Kapoor v. State of Haryana was held misplaced, and it relied on Ashok Khetolia, Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee and State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh. It perused the original record on population, density, revenue, non-agricultural employment and economic importance, and noted that Rajam Nagar Panchayat had been upgraded as a Grade-III Municipality by G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 24.03.2021. Loss of rural scheme benefits was no ground, as inclusion is for betterment and urbanisation.

The Court answered all questions against the petitioners: the Act is upheld, is not violative of Article 14 or 243Q(2) or contrary to the 73rd and 74th Amendments, is neither legislative overreach nor colourable legislation, did not require separate notifications, and audi alteram partem did not apply. The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. The Court recorded that it expressed no opinion on the maintainability of W.P. Nos. 27487, 27885 and 27476 of 2026, which were tagged with the batch.

Precedents referred to

State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetolia (2022) 12 SCC 185
Jangili Sagar v. State of Telangana (AIR 2019 AP 30)
Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana (2017) 1 SCC 283
State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh (2002) 2 SCC 7
State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997) 2 SCC 453
Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat (2022) 15 SCC 364
Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee (1980) 2 SCC 295
V.K. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (distinguished)

Provisions referred to

Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 5 of 2021)
Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Sections 2(42-a) and 3(1-B)
Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, Section 3(3-A)
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 243P, 243Q and 226
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Constitutional Municipal Law Local Self-Government Writ Jurisdiction

Related judgments

Telangana High Court ·1 Oct 2026 ·Writ Jurisdiction

Telangana HC orders unsealing of sanctioned floors, directs civic body to consider regularisation plea on Rs 3 lakh costs

The question: Whether the petitioner can seek consideration of regularisation of unauthorised floors after a show-cause notice and sealing of the building

The Telangana High Court, Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy, disposed of a writ petition against a municipal show-cause notice by directing the Cyberabad Municipal Corporation authorities to unseal the sanctioned stilt plus two upper floors of a building, while keeping the unauthorised third, fourth and fifth floors sealed. The petitioner was directed to apply for regularisation within ten days, and the authorities to decide it within four weeks, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.3,00,000. The petitioner, a businessman, challenged show-cause notice dated 22.08.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.45, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation. The notice stated that he had constructed a building on Plot No.26 (Western Part) at Krishna Reddy Enclave, Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The sanctioned plan was for stilt plus two upper floors, but he had built additional third and fourth floors and centring for the fifth floor. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought to declare the notice illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, and to have his representation for regularisation considered. An interim application sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with the construction. The State of Telangana (Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department), the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Deputy Commissioner were the respondents. The Court heard the petitioner's senior counsel and the standing counsel for the Cyberabad Municipal Corporation.

Disposed of WP/30958/2026

Telangana High Court ·18 Sep 2026 ·Anti-Defection ★ Editor's pick Landmark

Telangana HC sets aside Speaker's orders, declares MLA disqualified for contesting Lok Sabha polls on another party's ticket

The question: Was the Speaker's decision vitiated on the grounds of judicial review laid down in Kihoto Hollohan?

The Telangana High Court has set aside the Speaker's decisions in two disqualification petitions and declared that Danam Nagender stands disqualified as a Member of the Telangana Legislative Assembly from 23 April 2024, the date he filed his nomination as the candidate set up by the Indian National Congress (INC) for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Secunderabad, despite having been elected on a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) ticket. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, by a common order in Writ Petition Nos. 8409 and 8647 of 2026, held that the Speaker's contrary findings breached the constitutional mandate and were perverse. The Court declared the seat vacant. Mr. Nagender was elected from the 60-Khairatabad constituency in December 2023. On 23 April 2024 he filed his nomination for the Lok Sabha as an INC candidate, campaigned against the BRS candidate and lost. Disqualification Petition No. 1 of 2024 (Padi Kaushik Reddy) was filed on 18 March 2024, and Disqualification Petition No. 4 of 2024 (Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, a BJP member) on 1 July 2024, both seeking a declaration of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. On 31 July 2025 the Supreme Court directed the Speaker to decide within three months. The Speaker, sitting as a Tribunal, dismissed both petitions on 11 March 2026, and the petitioners came to the High Court.

Allowed WP/8647/2026

Calcutta High Court ·30 Sep 2026 ·Labour Law

Calcutta HC sets aside award applying central minimum wages to contract labour; West Bengal is the appropriate government

The question: Is the Central Government or the State Government the 'appropriate government' for contract labour engaged through contractors at the company's Howrah factory?

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the award of 13 November 2024 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in case no. 39 of 2022, which held that the contractors' employees working for Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. are entitled to minimum wages at the rate fixed by the Central Government. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that, because the workers are engaged through contractors for work carried out within West Bengal, the State Government is the appropriate government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the State Minimum Wages Act therefore applies to them. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited awarded contracts to several contractors through tenders with a condition that minimum rates of wages be paid to the labourers. Bridge and Roof Contractors' Shramik Union raised an industrial dispute for the contract workers at the Howrah factory, demanding Rs 26,000 a month as minimum wages or, in the alternative, the minimum wages notified by the Central Government. On a reference made on 26 August 2022, the Tribunal found nothing on record to show that the minimum rate was Rs 26,000. In its award of 13 November 2024 in Reference No. 39 of 2022, it nevertheless allowed the reference in part, holding that the contractors' employees were entitled to the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government from time to time, and that the company was bound to pay its contractors at that rate for payment to those employees. The company challenged the award in a writ petition.

Dismissed WPA/11917/2025