IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Smt. M. Siva Parvathi, W/o. M. Sambasiva Rao & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17502 of 2021
Decided On : 25-11-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 - Rules 53 3(c) and (d) - Suit For - Illegal arbitrary - Ground of pendency - Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are the absolute owners of land admeasuring 1965 sq. yards in R.S.No.218/5 situated at Village Kanuru Gram Panchayat Krishna District. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into development agreement with petitioner No.3 herein for development of above said land of 1965 sq. yards and petitioner No.3 has agreed to construct an apartment in said land. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 entered into Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) on in regard and same was registered as Document in Office of Joint Registrar - As per above Development Agreement-cum-GPA land owners petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for a share of 47% in constructed area and Developer - Petitioner No.3 is entitled for a share of 53% in constructed area – Held, Respondents raised a specific plea that no approach road is provided since third parties are claiming right in an extent of between Gram Panchayat road and building of petitioner - Main reason for issue of impugned proceedings is pendency of suit - Mere pendency of suit regarding part of access/road is not a ground to reject claim of petitioner and that too respondent No.3 is not a party to suit and no interim order was granted - On other hand, I.A. was filed under Order XXXIX Rule (1) and (2), and same was dismissed - While dismissing said I.A. it was observed that road belongs to Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat has been managing same by erecting street lights and undertaking patch works such as plantation works erection of electrical poles wires cleaning of road of said road- It was also categorically held that if respondents therein are restrained by way of temporary injunction it will affect not only respondents therein petitioners herein but also public at large since petition schedule property is a road - order impugned in writ petition on ground of pendency of civil suit is illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 of Constitution of India - Order Impugned is liable to be set aside - Writ petition allowed
ORDER :
1. M. Siva Parvathi and two others filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for revision of building plan in B.A.No.1168/4043/B/ PMLR/KNR/2017 dated 01.02.2018 in respect of land admeasuring 1965 sq.yards in R.S.No.218/5 situated at Kanuru Village, Kanuru Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District on the ground of pendency of civil suit is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled for sanction of revised building plan and for release of mortgage created in favour of respondent No.2.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are the absolute owners of land admeasuring 1965 sq. yards in R.S.No.218/5 situated at Kanuru Village, Kanuru Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into development agreement with petitioner No.3 herein for development of the above said land of 1965 sq. yards and petitioner No.3 has agreed to construct an apartment in the said land. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 entered into Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 21.03.2018 in this regard and the same was registered as Document No.2708 of 2018 in the Office of Joint Registrar, Patamata. As per the above Development Agreement-cum-GPA, the land owners i.e. petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for a share of 47% in the constructed area and the Developer i.e. petitioner No.3 is entitled for a share of 53% in the constructed area. Subsequently, the land owners and the developer have agreed to share the constructed area in the ratio of 50:50 and they entered into the supplemental agreement to the said Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney and got the same registered on 29.08.2018 vide document No.8498 of 2018 on the file of the Joint Sub-registrar, Patamata, Vijayawada. Prior to entering into the above said Development Agreement-cum-GPA, petitioners 1 and 2 herein obtained building permission for construction of ground + five upper floors on the above said land from the erstwhile A.P. Capital Region Development Authority vide B.A.No.1168/4043/B/PMLR/KNR/2017, dated 01.02.2018. Based on the approval/permission plan sanctioned by the erstwhile APCRDA, petitioner No.3 has taken up the construction activity in the said site.
3. In the building plan which was sanctioned in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, there was a typographical error in so far as numbering of flats are concerned. In the approved plan the flat numbers were represented from North to South. However, as per the actual drawing, flat numbers should be represented from South to North. Having noticed the above said mistake, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 made application for rectification/revision of flat numbers and submitted a revised plan by showing flat numbers from South to North. While the construction of the above said building was undertaken by petitioner No.3 herein, third parties filed O.S.No.938 of 2018 before the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein (petitioners herein) from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and using the same as their approach road for all purposes. In the plan, it is averred that they are the owners of land admeasuring 165 sq. yards in Sy.No.220/3A situated at Kanuru Villge, Penamaluru Mandal; that there was no approach road to the defendants therein (petitioners herein) for their site and sought for perpetual injunction against the defendants (petitioners herein). They also filed I.A.No.553 of 2018 in O.S.No.938 of 2018 for grant of temporary injunction during pendency of
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.