Any acquisition of property that a particular legal order does not sanction should receive neither legal recognition nor legal protection.

In spite of Dr. Thomas Fuller’s warning in 1733 saying ‘be ye never so high, the law is above you’ and reiterated later by Lord Denning, still some feel that they can violate law with impunity.

2. These two writ petitions are disposed of by a common order in view of the common issue involved in them.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The parties are described, for the sake of convenience, as they are arrayed in W.P.17943 of 2008.

4. One, Smt. M.Madhavi, the 3rd respondent, is the owner of properties bearing premises bearing Nos.33-25-32, Bellapu Sobhanadri Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada and premises bearing Nos. 33-18-13, 13A and 14, situated at C.V.K. Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada in her own capacity and as Managing Director of M/s. Venkateswara Hospitals (P) Ltd. Her husband, the 4th respondent is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Her property has two neighbours. One neighbour is a owner of property, premises bearing door No.33-18-16, situated at C.V.K.Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada (Petitioner in W.P.12214 of 2008) and the other is the owner of another property, premises bearing door No.33-25-33, situated at Bellapu Sobhanadri Street, Vijayawada (Petitioner in W.P.17943 of 2008). She initially obtained sanction for construction of RCC roof slab for ground + three floors in premises bearing door Nos.33-25-32, NTS No.791, Vijayawada through proceedings of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, 2nd respondent, in B.A.No.1653/2005, dated 09.09.2005. The said sanction plan was for construction of residential building, but the building was constructed to suit their convenience to run a hospital. The Petitioner in W.P.12214/2008 got issued a registered notice on 19.11.2007 to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action. It was followed by another notice on 23.11.2007 to the 2nd respondent to take expeditious action on the subject. The 3rd respondent got issued a reply dated 01.12.2007 admitting the fact that her hospital is being run in the building. She filed an application for regularising the deviated portion of the constructions and no further orders were passed in view of orders in W.P.M.P.No.1276 of 2008 in W.P.No.1069 of 2008 dated 27-3-2008. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed report on 16-7-2008 with regard to the deviations.

5. The 3rd respondent obtained another permission from the second respondent in B.A.No.1260/2007 dated 19.05.2007 for construction of RCC roof slab for stilt, ground + four floors for residential building in premises bearing door No.33-18-14, 13 & 13A. The above petitioner again got issued a notice on 21.01.2008 requesting the 3rd respondent not to proceed with the unauthorised constructions. The petitioner obtained copies of approved plans and issued another notice to the 2nd respondent to stop illegal constructions of the 3rd respondent. When the respondents did not take any action, the W.P.No.12214 of 2000 was filed. The third respondent denied the allegation that the building was constructed in violation of master plan and zonal regulations. She stated that her husband, 4th respondent was using the said building to run a nursing home which is permissible in residential area. Since there were minor deviations to the sanctioned plan, she applied for regularisation of deviations by paying requisite fee prescribed by the Government. She denied the allegation of nuisance and harassment to the petitioner. She further stated that she, along with Sri Venkateswara Hospitals Private Limited are the joint owners of the property situated at C.K.Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada and she obtained permission for construction of residential apartments vide B.A.No.1260/2007 dated 19.05.2007. Since the sanctioned plan was not suitable to their needs and as the 4th respondent is a doctor by profession, she leased out the property bearing door No.33-18-14, 13, 13A in favour of Sri M.Jeeva Ratnam Naidu who is none other th