Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.A.SWAMY
Sheriff Iqbal Hussain Ahmed (died) by LRs. - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 06-13-01
Andhra pradesh Urban Development Act - Section 43 - Writ petition – Constructing – Violation – Regulations - Municipal bye-laws - Orders - While admitting the writ petition, passed an order in directing the 4th respondent to stop further construction - This Court also passed orders directing the Commissioner, Vijayawada, Guntur and tenali Urban Development Authority (herein after referred to as UDA) to see that the unofficial 4th respondent does not violate the regulations or the building bye-laws - As per the orders of this Court, it is seen that notice to the 4th respondent seemed to have been issued and when the said WPMP came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that inspite of the orders passed by this Court, The 4th respondent is going ahead with the construction work and the 3rd respondent is not able to curtail the 4th respondent from making further constructions. In those circumstances, this Court by order directed the 3rd respondent to report this Court about the stage of construction within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and also directed the concerned police including the Commissioner of Police, vijayawada to give effect to the orders of this Court and prevent the 4th respondent from making any kind of further construction and if the 4th respondent is found violating the said order, suitable action will be taken - Held, Separate but concurrent judgment held thus:"law has veered round from genuine grievance against order affecting prejudicially to sufficient interest in the matter. The rise in exercise of power by the executive and comparative decline in proper and effective administrative guidance is forcing citizens to espouse challenges with public interest flavour. It is too late in the day, therefore, to claim that petition filed by inhabitants of a locality whose park was converted into a nursing home had no cause to invoke enquiry jurisdiction of the High Court. In fact, public-spirited citizens having faith in rule of law are rendering great social and legal service by espousing cause of public nature. They cannot be ignored or overlooked on technical or conservative yardstick of the rule of locus standi or absence of personal loss or injury - it is seen that when the interests of residents of a locality I are adversely affected by an illegal construction made by the neighbouring residents and such construction interferes with their right to enjoyment of free air, light and health and being aggrieved by the action of the authorities in permitting such construction, they can challenge such action in a Court of law and, therefore, they are having locus standi to question such action. Unfortunately, the learned District Munsif, having noticed that the construction was not in accordance with the building bye-laws and having taken note of the orders of this court quashing relaxation granted by the court, failed to visualise the consequences that will flow from that order and examined the issue only from the point of view of the individual concerned than considering the issue from the point of public injury. Hence the judgment and decree of the Court below cannot be sustained in law and it is accordingly set aside- Therefore the first appeal is closed.
( 1 ) ONE Sri Sharif Iqbal Hussain ahmad, petitioner herein filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to restrain the un-official respondent No. 4 from constructing the first floor on the premises bearing No. 11-40-2 situated at Pulaparthi street, Vijayawada, which is in violation of the zoning regulations and municipal bye-laws and to pass any other order or orders in the interest of justice.
( 2 ) THIS Court by order dated 13-5-1997 while admitting the writ petition, passed an order in WP MP No. 12885 of 1995 directing the 4th respondent to stop further construction. This Court also passed orders in WPMP No. 12886 of 1997 directing the Commissioner, Vijayawada, Guntur and tenali Urban Development Authority (herein after referred to as UDA) to see that the unofficial 4th respondent does not violate the regulations or the building bye-laws. In wpmp No. 12885 of 1985, as per the orders of this Court, it is seen that notice to the 4th respondent seemed to have been issued and when the said WPMP came up for hearing on 27-6-1997, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that inspite of the orders passed by this Court, dated 13-5-1997, the 4th respondent is going ahead with the construction work and the 3rd respondent is not able to curtail the 4th respondent from making further constructions. In those circumstances, this Court by order dated 27-6-1997 directed the 3rd respondent to report this Court about the stage of construction within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and also directed the concerned police including the Commissioner of Police, vijayawada to give effect to the orders of this Court dated 13-5-1997 and prevent the 4th respondent from making any kind of further construction and if the 4th respondent is found violating the said order, suitable action will be taken.
( 3 ) FROM the counter of the 3rd respondent it is seen that he seemed to have sent a report to this Court on 5-7-1997, wherein he stated that the 4th respondent has constructed ground floor and first floor and the same was completed except finishing work like flooring, etc. , in the 1st floor. The ground floor was let out for shops but not yet been occupied. He also stated that the UDA granted permission for conversion of the tiled roof as per the orders of the government in G. O. Rt. No. 199 MA, dated 8-2-1995 where under certain zoning regulations were relaxed in favour of the 4th respondent.
( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as per the orders of this Court in WPMP no. 19623 of 2000, dated 7-9-2000. By order, dated 7-9-2000, I directed the appearance of the 4th respondent before this Court on 19-9-2000. There after, the respondents played hide and seek game with the Court for some time stating that the 4th respondent is now staying in Gulf. When the matter came up for hearing on 29-9-2000, the notice sent to the 4th respondent was returned un-served and the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the 4th respondent is now in Gulf and his affairs are being looked after by his father and his younger brother. While directing the office to issue notice to both the individuals to appear before this Court on 12-10-2000, I gave show-cause notice to the 4th respondent as well as the Commissioner of Vijayawada as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for not giving effect to the orders of this Court dated 13-5-1997 and 27-6-1997. Whey they did not appear before the Court, this Court was pleased to issue NBW for securing their presence. As per the orders of this Court dated 12-10-2000, both of them appeared before this Court on 23-10-2000 and sought for time to file counter. Having withdrawn the NBWs against them, I directed the respondents not to make any further construction on the dispu
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
