Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.ANANDA REDDY
K.Jawahar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department - Respondent
Decided On : 01-07-03
Land Laws – Regularising Construction – Writ petitions are filed by the owners of the property aggrieved by orders passed by commissioner and Special Officer, municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under which the earlier proceedings regularising construction made by the petitioners were cancelled – Other two writ petitions are filed by two neighbours to the above-referred property complaining violation of Building Bye-laws and they sought for quashing of government Orders in G. O. Ms. and G. O. Ms. and also the revised permit as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and also further sought for a direction not to regularise the illegal constructions that were effected in the above referred property – Further a direction was also sought for to the authorities of the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action in respect of the illegal constructions made in the above referred" property by the owners and demolish the unauthorised and illegal constructions effected in the said property – Held, If court examine the facts of the present case in the light of the above referred decisions the contention of the owners of the building that no public right has been affected and at the most what is affected is only the private right of the neighbours and therefore, the present proceedings are not maintainable by the neighbouring owners, is devoid of merit. – As already referred, it was held that even if the private rights are affected, the neighbouring owners of the disputed property can maintain writ petitions seeking mandamus against the municipal authorities to see that the disputed structure should be in conformity with the building bye-laws of the local authority. – Similarly, even the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that no Writ of mandamus could be issued, directing the corporation to demolish structures that were built in contravention of the sanctioned plan as well as the Rules and the building bye-laws, is devoid of merit, in the light of the decisions of our own High Court referred to earlier, where a mandamus was issued against the Cantonment Board to take appropriate steps for the removal of the deviated and unauthorised constructions. – From the facts of the present case, it is very clear that the Petitioners, who are the owners of the disputed building have constructed the building in violation of the sanctioned plan as well building bye-laws of the Corporation and in fact even when the corporation tried to take action either to stall the unauthorised constructions or to demolish the same, they have filed a civil suit and obtained orders and continued the 14. 1979 (1) ALT 147. constructions. – The material on record clearly shows that the owners of the building have deliberately continued and completed the constructions in violation of the sanctioned plan and the building bye-laws and therefore, there cannot be equities in favour of such individuals. – Two writ petitions, filed questioning cancellation orders in Permit are dismissed – Petitions Dismissed
( 1 ) THE 1st two writ petitions are filed by the owners of the property bearing Municipal no. 3-4-142/5/a, Barkathpura, Hyderabad aggrieved by the orders passed by the commissioner and Special Officer, municipal Corporation of Hyderabad dated 23-10-1998 under which the earlier proceedings regularising the construction made by the petitioners were cancelled. The other two writ petitions are filed by two neighbours to the above-referred property complaining violation of the Building Bye-laws and they sought for quashing of the government Orders in G. O. Ms. No. 289 dt 25-5-1998 and G. O. Ms. No. 419 dt. 30-7-1998 and also the revised permit Nos. 172/ 17/ 80 and 172/17/79 dt. 26-6-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and also further sought for a direction not to regularise the illegal constructions that were effected in the above referred property. Further a direction was also sought for to the authorities of the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action in respect of the illegal constructions made in the above referred" property by the owners and demolish the unauthorised and illegal constructions effected in the said property. As the dispute in all the four writ petitions relates to the same property, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in the first two writ petitions, who are husband and wife, purchased 300 sq. metres of house-site in the premises bearing Municipal No. 3-4-142/5/2, barkathpura, Hyderabad from one smt. G. Kamala Rao through a registered sale deed dt. 26-6-1997. Thereafter, the said purchasers submitted a joint application for the construction of the building to the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short m. C. H ) vide M. C. H. No. 144/5/97. The M. C. H. sanctioned the plan submitted by them and issued permit No. 63/82. 29-9-1997. As per the sanctioned plan, constructions have to be effected in the ground floor plus two floors. It is also stated that in the ground floor the owners have to leave northern side for parking and construction has to be made on southern side. The M. C. H. while sanctioning the plan did not allow balcony on the 2nd floor and one bedroom on the eastern side and granted sanction only for the rest of the plan. According to the owners of the property (petitioners in the 1st two writ petitions), they found that the parking space shown in the sanctioned plan was not sufficient for the occupants of the building and therefore they left the entire ground floor for parking without any construction except the staircase and decided to construct one more floor on the top. Accordingly, they have constructed the additional floor instead of effecting any construction on the ground floor. Thereafter, the owners approached the government for regularisation under the relevant Rules of the Corporation as well as to condone the deviations. While the said application was pending before the government, the owners came to know that the M. C. H was regularising the unauthorised constructions and deviations from the sanctioned plans, therefore the owners approached the M. C. H As the owners of the said premises came to know that the condition for regularisation was that the site should be less than 200 sq. mtrs. , then according to them there was a past oral partition and the same was reduced into writing in August, 1997. It is stated that the said oral partition was made essentially for the purpose of division of expenses for the construction between the two owners who are husband and wife, as the construction was financed by each of them, According to them, they have shown the said memo of partition and submitted the application for regularisation. The M. C. H. sanctioned the revised plan after due inspection and verification and issued Permit Nos. 172/17/ 79 dt. 26-6-1998 in favour of the wife and permit No. 172/17/80 dt. 26-6-1998 in favour of the husband. It is also stated
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
