Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.A.CHOUDHARY
SADDI NARASIMHA REDDI - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER (NOW SPECIAL OFFICER) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-19-80
HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1955 - Sections 440(1), 452(2), 636(2) - The court analyzed the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, particularly Sections 440(1), 452(2), and 636(2), which give discretionary power to the Commissioner to order demolition of unauthorised constructions. The court interpreted the language of these provisions and discussed the context in which the word 'may' is used, concluding that demolition should be ordered in cases where there is a substantial violation of building bye-laws and infringement of neighborhood rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner constructed a building in violation of the building bye-laws of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Corporation issued a show cause notice for demolition of the unauthorised constructions, which was followed by the order of demolition. The petitioner challenged the order of demolition through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the building bye-laws. It held that while the Act gives discretionary power to the Commissioner to order demolition, such discretion is limited in cases where the unauthorised constructions violate rules relating to hygiene, sanitation, and the well-being of the neighborhood. The court referred to precedents and emphasized that demolition should be ordered when there is a flagrant violation of building bye-laws and infringement of neighborhood rights. It also rejected the argument that imposition of a fine is an alternative to demolition in every case. The court upheld the validity of the order of demolition in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the municipal authorities have a duty to order demolition of unauthorised constructions that violate building bye-laws and infringe on the rights of the neighborhood. The court emphasized that the discretion of the authorities ends when there is a substantial violation of rules relating to hygiene, sanitation, and the well-being of the neighborhood. Demolition should be the rule in such cases to preserve public faith in the law.
Result: The writ petition challenging the order of demolition was dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition filed by a resident of Anand Nagar Colony hyderabad, seeking to quash an order of demolition of June 24 h, 1978 made by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation acting under the provisions of the HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1955, 1955.
( 2 ) THE petitioner applied to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for grant of permission to construct a new building in his open plot of land situated in Anand Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, In that application of his accompained by his building plan, he had asked that the 36 feet wide road on the southern side of the then proposed construction should be treated as the front portion. According to that plan, 10 feet open space on the eastern side throughout was to be left unbuilt and 5 feet on the western side was to be left unbuilt In the rear portion he was to leave 12 feet open space between the main building and the garage lumber room and more than 10 feet between the lumber room and the compounj wall. In the plan he submitted, be applied for permission for construction of W. Cs and bath-room abutting the western compound wall and touching the store-room in the rear. He had also sought permission to construct a projection in the front portion facing 36 teet wids road But the Municipal Corporation had refused permission for the construction of W. Cs. and bath-rooms abutting the western wall on one side and the rear store room on the other and also for the construction of projections in the front portion In the plan as approved by the Corporation there should be more than 10 feet open space left in the front portion and in the rear side there should be more than 10 feet open space left and in the eastern side there should be 10 feet open space left and and on the western side there should be more than 5 feet open space left. But now the petitioner had constructed his building considerably deviating from the plan as sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. Such construction is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) According to section 440 Clause 1 of the Act, a person should not continence the erection of any building until he had given notice of his intention to do so and the municipal Corporation had either intimated its approval to the construction of such a building or failed to intimate its disapproval thereof within the period statutonly prescribed. It was in compliance with these requirements of Section 440 Clause (1) the petitioner had submitted his building plan and sought and obtained permission of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for the construction of a new building according to that plan. Now the construction of a building in a crowded and busy metropolis like Hyderabad and for that matter in any crowded area always requires to be closely and strictly controlled by law in the interests of general public. Construction of buildings cannot be left completely to the individual choice of convenience and comfort. Such constructions can only be permitted within the parameters laid down by the comrnunity through its law. A building of a house in a metropolis involves not merly the pers nal comfort and the welfare of the individual builder but also the comfort and the welfare of the entire community. It is for that reason that in addition to the laying down of the requirement of giving advance notice, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation act authorised the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to make building regulations. In exercise of those statutory powers, the Hyderabad Municipal corporation framed the Building Bye-laws of 1972 forbidding construction of buildings otherwise than in accordance with those building bye-laws. These regulations are made for the purpose of ensuring supply of free light and free air and ensuring maintenance of hygienic conditions for those living in Hyderabad. These bye-laws give advance intimation to the intending builders as to what
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.