Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Atluri Vijaya Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6761 of 2021
Decided On : 24-07-2021
BUILDING PERMISSION - WITHHOLDING - INNER RING ROAD - ACQUISITION - DELAY - ILLEGALITY - ARTICLE 300-A VIOLATION - DIRECTION TO COMPLETE PROCESS OR ACQUIRE LAND.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought building permission for constructing an educational institute on their land. The application was pending with the authorities due to the proposed Inner Ring Road project. The authorities did not acquire the land or grant permission for construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the inaction of the authorities in not completing the process of building permission and not initiating the acquisition proceedings was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The court directed the authorities to complete the process of building permission within 60 days or commence the process of land acquisition within 60 days.
Issues: 1. Whether the withholding of building permission due to the proposed Inner Ring Road project was illegal and arbitrary? 2. Whether the failure to acquire the land or grant permission for construction violated Article 300-A of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra and the High Court of Telangana in Channavajala Vijaya Lakshmi v. State of Telangana to hold that keeping a building application pending indefinitely on the ground that the property is likely to be acquired is not a valid ground. 2. The court also held that the failure of the authorities to complete the process of building permission and not initiating the acquisition proceedings was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to complete the process of building permission within 60 days or commence the process of land acquisition within 60 days.
JUDGMENT
M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - One Atluri Vijaya Babu (Petitioner No.1), Atluri Venkata Subash Babu (Petitioner No.2) along with Nalanda Estates Private Limited filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of the respondents in withholding the application of the third petitioner for building permission vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 under the guise of Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018 issued for the proposed Inner Ring Road (IRR) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently to set-aside the same and direct the respondents to either sanction the third petitioner application vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 or take steps to acquire the subject property under the applicable land acquisition law in vogue.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 along with others are the land owners to an extent of Ac.1-20 cents in Sy.No.479/3, Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.480/1C, Ac.0-28 cents in Sy.No.480/2C and Ac.0-07 cents in Sy.No.481/4 of Poranki Village and Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, (herein after referred as 'subject property' for convenience).
3. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 intended to construct educational institute/school building in the subject property and offered the same to the third petitioner for development on mutually agreed terms and conditions, finally entered into Development Agreement on 10.11.2017 recording all the terms and conditions.
4. The third petitioner - company, in consonance with the Development Agreement approached the second respondent/ Commissioner, AMRDA, vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/ PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 for constructing an educational institute/school building by paying requisite fee.
5. As per the plan submitted, the total built up area is 5805.85 sq.mts as one single block with cellar and four floors. The third petitioner - company has complied with the mandatory requirements for obtaining the building permission. Further, it is contended that, as per AMRDA Zoning Regulations, the schedule property falls within public use zone and the petitioners are entitled to construct school building in the said property without any hindrances or conversion procedures.
6. It is contended that, as per Section 110 of Capital Region Development Act, 2014 (Repealed Act), the third petitioner - company applied to the second respondent for obtaining building permission. As per the said provision, the Commissioner shall examine the plan submitted and he may accept unconditionally or conditionally or may refuse the same within sixty (60) days. If, the second respondent fails to accept or refuse the application within such time, the said application for development shall be deemed as accepted. The third petitioner - company has applied for the approval of plan on 19.05.2017 and the second respondent by 18.07.2017 must either have accepted or refused the said application of the petitioners. however, as the proposed building is intended to be used as school building, as it involves thousands of students future, the petitioners refrained from progressing with the development activities, taking cue from deeming provision and diligently waited for the second respondent to give its accord and asatisfaction in the form of building permission approval proceedings. It is submitted that, Section 110 of CRDA Act (Repealed Act) is replaced by Section 84 of AMRDA Act, the law applicable to Amaravati Region as per CRDA Repeal Act No.27 of 2020. Further, the petitioners requested the second respondent several times to release the approved building permission and the second respondent officials dodged the same on one pretext or the other for the past three year
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
