Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
Aditya Constructions, reptd., by its Partner, sri Chiranjilal Vyas - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dept, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-21-92
ZONING REGULATIONS - BUILDING BYE-LAWS - MULTISTOREYED BUILDING REGULATIONS - CLASSIFICATION OF ZONES - DISCRIMINATION - EXEMPTION - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1955 - SECTIONS 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 437, 446, 447 - BUILDING BYE-LAWS, 1972 - CLAUSE 70 - BUILDING BYE-LAWS, 1981 - CLAUSE 17 (VIII) - MULTISTOREYED BUILDING REGULATIONS, 1981 - REGULATION 3 (B) - ZONING REGULATIONS, 1981 - REGULATION 12, 19 - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - SECTION 6.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed an application for permission to construct a 1 + 13 storeyed building in Hyderabad. The application was submitted under the Municipal Corporation Bye-laws, 1972. However, the Municipal Corporation dealt with the application under the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority Multistoreyed Building Regulations, 1981, which came into force on 5-9-1981. The petitioner contended that its application should have been dealt with under the 1972 Bye-laws and not under the 1981 Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to have its application considered under the 1972 Bye-laws because the 1981 Regulations had come into force before the application was complete. The Court also held that the petitioner could not have commenced construction of the building in contravention of the maximum height of buildings as provided in Sections 446 and 447 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Further, the Court held that the Zoning Regulations and Appendix A of the Multistoreyed Building Regulations were not arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court also held that the Government did not have the power to grant exemption from the Regulations and that the petitioner was not entitled to a direction that the building proposed by it shall be exempted from the 1981 Regulations and Bye-laws.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have its application considered under the 1972 Bye-laws? 2. Whether the petitioner could have commenced construction of the building in contravention of the maximum height of buildings as provided in Sections 446 and 447 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955? 3. Whether the Zoning Regulations and Appendix A of the Multistoreyed Building Regulations were arbitrary or discriminatory? 4. Whether the Government had the power to grant exemption from the Regulations? 5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction that the building proposed by it shall be exempted from the 1981 Regulations and Bye-laws?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner was not entitled to have its application considered under the 1972 Bye-laws because the 1981 Regulations had come into force before the application was complete. 2. The petitioner could not have commenced construction of the building in contravention of the maximum height of buildings as provided in Sections 446 and 447 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 3. The Zoning Regulations and Appendix A of the Multistoreyed Building Regulations were not arbitrary or discriminatory. 4. The Government did not have the power to grant exemption from the Regulations. 5. The petitioner was not entitled to a direction that the building proposed by it shall be exempted from the 1981 Regulations and Bye-laws.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.
( 2 ) PETITIONER filed an application dated 14-8-1981 for permission to construct 1 + 13 storeyed building, to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It contended that its application should have been dealt with under Municipal corporation Bye-laws, 1972 and not under Bhagyanagar Urban Development authority Multistoreyed Building Regulations, 1981 which came into force on 5-9-1981. It also contended that the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws enacted by G. O. Ms. No. 905 dated 7-8-1981 which came into force on 5-9-1981 were not applicable to its application.
( 3 ) THE learned single Judge heard the matter along with W. P. No. 11818/86 and passed a common order referring both the writ petitions to a Division bench. The former - W. P. No. 11818/86 - was disposed of because it was rendered infructuous as the petitioner therein constructed the building in accordance with the sanction accorded by the relevant authorities. W. P. No. 11819/1986 remains for consideration.
( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed on 2-9-1986. Our learned brother Ramaswamy, j. , as he then was, issued rule nisi on 3-9-1986 and directed that the hearing may be expedited. On another application a learned brother of ours, on 2-3-1987 ordered that the writ petition may be posted in April, 1987. It was apparently in the list for a fairly long time. The reference order was made on 27-8-1987. After obtaining orders from the Chief Justice, the matter was posted for the first time on 14-9-1987. It remained in the list thereafter till it was dismissed for default of counsel on 4-7-1989. On an application, the same was restored on 20-10-1989. It was in the hearing list thereafter before various Division Benches. It came up before us on 17-7-1991. We heard the matter in part and ordered to post the same on 22-7-1991. The case was heard piecemeal on various occasions, till finally counsel for petitioner called for production of certain files from the government and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. These were produced after some time and arguments were heard with reference to them. The Corporation filed its counter affidavit on 28-11-1991 as suggested by us. Thereafter, counsel on both sides filed written arguments in December, 1991. Again on request of counsel, the case was posted for supplementary submissions. Fortunately, now we have come to the end of this six-year-old odyssey. As is evident from the above recitals, the period of about six years of pendency in this court is referrable partly to the delay in the judicial process and partly to default of counsel.
( 5 ) NOW the facts. Petitioner firm applied on 14-8-1981 to the 2nd respondent for permission to construct a commercial complex at Sardar Patel Road, secunderabad in land bearing No. 1-2-34 to 39 and 47. It claims to have paid an amount of Rs. 5,32,071/- under the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad building Bye-laws along with the application for permission to construct 1 + 13 floors including the ground-floor though the claim is disputed by the 2nd respondent. Second respondent in its letter dated 23-1-1982 allowed the petitioner to construct only four floors. It was so done apparently in view of the fact that the Government had promulgated G. O. Ms. No. 917, Housing, Municipal administration and Urban Development Department, dated 11-8-1981 containing Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority Multistoreyed Building regulations, 1981. The Government also issued Bhagyanagar Urban development Authority (Zoning) Regulations, 1981. Those Regulations came into force on 5-9-1981. In G. O. Ms. No. 905, Municipal Administration and urban Development Department, dated 7-8-1981 the Government issued the municipal Corporation Bu
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
