Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.
Dr. V. Sundara Rao and others – Appellant
Versus
Director, Town and Country Planning, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others – Respondent
WP No. 23840 of 2004
Decided on : 30-8-2005
Headnote:
A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999 - Section 13 - A.P. Apartments Act, 1987 – Evidence – Acquittal – Allegations - Case of petitioners in brief is that they are all residents of Street which is also known as Street and connects Road on North and Road on South - Width of Street varies from including open land and drainage channel constructed on road margins on its both sides – Held, Other contention relates to respondent not obtaining required permissions under Act - As per Section 13 of 1999 Act any person proposing to construct a high raise building or a building to be used for any purpose other than residential purpose or a building proposed to be used for residential purpose of more than 15 meters in height such as Group Housing multi-storey flats, workup apartments etc., shall have to apply to Director General or any member of the service duly authorized by him in this behalf, before submitting the building plans to the authority or officer competent to approve the same under relevant law for time being in force for a No Objection Certificate along with such fee as may be prescribed - Since building proposed to be constructed by respondent is of a height meters provisions of Section 13 of 1999 Act have to be complied with by respondent before its plan can be sanctioned or approved by respondent - Since no material is placed on record to show that said requirement was complied with, I see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent that a no objection from the fire services authorities can be obtained subsequently - In view of Court above findings Court feel it not necessary to go into other contentions raised by learned Counsel for parties - Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. Questioning the permission given to the 4th respondent by the 3rd respondent Municipality for construction of 24 apartments consisting of stilt and five floors, in a site measuring 618.66 square yards in Kanchirajuvari Street, Tanuku, petitioners filed this petition.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are all residents of Kanchirajuvari Street, which is also known as Babugari Street, and connects Rashtrapathi Road on the North and Sthree Samajam Road on the South. The width of Kanchirajuvari Street varies from 17'6? to 19'6?, including the open land and drainage channel constructed on the road margins on its both sides. Respondents 1 to 3 refused permission to B.S.R. Constructions to construct 30 apartments with stilt, ground and 4 floors in about 610 square meters of site in Kanchirajuvari Street, opposite to the house of the 1st petitioner on the ground of the road width being less than the mandatory 40 feet. Though the width of the road is not increased thereafter, respondents 1 and 3 seem to have granted permission to the 4th respondent to construct a multi-storied building in the Kanchirajuvari Street on the basis of a report submitted by the second respondent relating to road width, without taking into consideration the objections of the residents of Kanchirajuvari Street. Since the apartments proposed to be constructed by the 4th respondent would violate the provisions of the A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 1987 Act) and the Rules made thereunder, and also the provisions of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 1999 Act) and the various G.Os., relating to set backs, open spaces and fire safety regulations, permission granted to the 4th respondent is liable to be set aside. The allegations in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent (filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2), in brief, are, the width of the Kanchirajuvari Street varies from place to place and is not uniform, the minimum width being 18' and the maximum width being 32'. With a view to reduce traffic congestion, 3rd respondent-Municipality proposed to connect Rastrapati Road and Sthree Samajam Road by widening the Kanchirajuvari Street upto 40' and accordingly prepared a Master Plan under Section 14(3) of A.P. Town Planning Act, 1920, for which the Government has given its approval vide G.O.Ms. No. 480 M.A., dated 19-9-2000. It is true that permission for construction of a multi-storied building was not granted to B.S.R. Constructions due to insufficient road width. Since the report of the second respondent, who made a personal inspection of the area on 12-10-2004 in pursuance of the application for construction of a multi-storied building submitted by the 4th respondent, showed varying road width, second respondent returned the application of 4th respondent on 6-11-2004 for non-availability of 9 meters width road, with instructions to the 3rd respondent-Municipality to release sanction only if 9 meters width road is physically available. Only after the 3rd respondent-Municipality furnished information that the existing road width in front of the site of the 4th respondent is 9 meters, was the permission accorded to the 4th respondent for construction of the apartments, in view of the G.O.Ms. No. 422 M.A., dated 31-7-1998.
3. The allegations, in brief, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent are, the width of Kanchirajuvari Street, including drain on either side, varies from 17'6? to 19'6? but the width of that road from Sthree Samajam Road upto Door No. 33-8-20 is uniformly 30'. Keeping in view the narrowness of that road and the density of the vehicular traffic plying thereon, a 40' wide road was proposed in the Master Plan, and so whenever permissions for construction of new buildings are sought in that road, owners are being asked to handover the required width of site, free of cost, for implementation of the Maste
