Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
N.V. RAMANA, J.
R. Srinivas Kumar
Vs
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others
WP Nos.5386 of 2008, 21354, 21749 and 21750 of 2009
Decided on : 5.8.2011
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
The Court emphasizes the importance of strict enforcement of laws against illegal constructions. It underscores that illegal constructions violate the rule of law and the principles of planned development, and that authorities have a statutory duty to prevent and demolish such structures (!) (!) .
The Court highlights that illegal constructions can adversely affect public amenities, traffic, and the environment, and pose safety hazards. It stresses that authorities must act promptly to demolish unauthorized structures to uphold urban planning and public safety (!) (!) .
It is clarified that even if substantial investment has been made, illegal constructions cannot be justified or regularized, and such actions undermine lawful urban development. The Court advocates for strict punitive measures against builders of illegal structures (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes that innocent purchasers who are unaware of illegalities in a property are entitled to compensation from the builder, and courts can direct the builder to provide such compensation to protect the rights of bona fide purchasers (!) .
The issue of obstruction on public roads and footpaths is addressed, affirming that public properties like pavements are meant for pedestrian use and cannot be encroached upon for private purposes. Encroachments on such public spaces are to be removed immediately to ensure safety and public convenience (!) (!) .
The Court stresses the importance of coordination between municipal authorities, traffic police, and other agencies to prevent illegal parking and ensure smooth traffic flow. It directs authorities to implement effective rules, monitor compliance, and take action against violations, including unauthorized parking and encroachments (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It is directed that all existing constructions violating the Master Plan or sanctioned plans should be identified and demolished if they are illegal or in deviation (!) . Authorities are also instructed to periodically assess compliance and hold responsible officials accountable for violations (!) .
The Court mandates that public roads, footpaths, and other civic amenities should be used solely for their intended purposes—traffic movement, pedestrian passage, and public utilities—and not for private commercial activities or encroachments (!) (!) .
The Court directs the municipal authorities to notify designated parking zones, construct multi-layered parking facilities, and ensure that commercial establishments provide sufficient parking within their premises. Existing establishments failing to comply should be served notices and, if necessary, face cancellation of licenses (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes the importance of timely implementation of these directives, instructing the authorities to execute the order within a specified timeframe to ensure proper urban management and public welfare (!) (!) .
These points reflect the Court’s stance on enforcing urban planning laws, preventing illegal constructions, and maintaining civic order for the benefit of the public.
The key issue raised in this batch of writ petitions is the failure of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to comply with the elementary norms of civic administration.
WP No.5386 of 2008
2. The petitioner states that he purchased two plots bearing Nos.10 and 11 in Sy.No.215/A, Safari Nagar, Kondapur Village, and having constructed a house in the said plots, is residing therein. According to him, as per the colony layout sanctioned by HUDA, there is a 40 feet approach road to their colony from Old Bombay main road. Every Sunday, petty vegetable and fruit vendors occupy the flanks of the said approach road and conduct their business. As a result, the passage of the approach road gets reduced thereby causing inconvenience to the general public, road users and movement of vehicles.
3. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner states that the respondents Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') issued notification dated 4.3.2008 for auctioning the leasehold rights to collect fee from vegetable, fruit, fish and mutton vendors. The auction was scheduled on 15.3.2008 at 11:00 a.m. According to the petitioner, the respondents are trying to legalize the unauthorized business, which the vegetable and fruit vendors were hitherto conducting on the road in question every Sunday by issuing the above notification.
4. The petitioner further states that the roads are meant for the movement of vehicles and for the benefit of general public, particularly the residents of the colony. The authorities of the Corporation under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GHMC Act') are under an obligation to identify and earmark places for conducting market but they cannot permit the conducting of vegetable and fruits business on the roads otherwise meant for use by pedestrians and movement of vehicles.
5. The petitioner states that he, along with eleven others, made a representation to the respondents-Corporation requesting them to shift the market from the road in question but no action thereon had been taken. Instead, the respondents are proceeding to conduct the auction as proposed. The petitioner states that if the respondents are allowed to conduct the auction they will be put to a lot of inconvenience. Hence, the petitioner seeks to declare the impugned notification as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the same.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampally filed a counter stating that Kothaguda weekly market is being conduct every Sunday for the last three years. The auction of weekly market is conducted every year. The vegetable and other petty business persons conduct their business along the road side margin of Old Bombay Road of Kondapur and along the internal road which leads to MPP School, Kondapur. While admitting the issuance of the impugned auction notification, the Deputy Commissioner contended that vegetable markets are established for the convenience of and in the interest of the residents of that area. The vendors conduct their business on the pavements every Sunday evenings and they do not cause any inconvenience to the road users. The auction of the weekly market is complete and it is allotted to the highest bidder. She admitted that a representation has been received from the residents of the locality for shifting of the market, but she contended that the same is under active consideration. Hence, she prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
WP No.21354 of 2009
7. The petitioner claims to be the President of Model House Space Owner's Association. He states that the total extent of land of Model House complex is 4,040 Sq.yds. The Government acquired land to an extent of 588.77 Sq.yds. and 281.23 Sq.yds. for formation of a new road from the main road to Dwarkapuri Colony and for widening the main road respectively. The Model House Complex ('Complex') constructed in the balance extent of 3,170 Sq.yds. in 1986.
SupremeToday
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
