Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 92
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
High Yield Estates Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.598 & 599 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ghanta Sridhar
Building permissions are subject to post-verification, and in case of non-compliance with the relevant rules or false submission, the building permission can be invalidated and deemed to be canceled.
Headnote:
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - BUILDING PERMISSION - POST VERIFICATION - A.P. BUILDING RULES, 2017 - RULE 3(22)(C) - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the show cause notices issued by the municipal corporation under Section 461(1) of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, alleging that the petitioner's constructions were unauthorized. The petitioner claimed to have obtained building permissions for each building and argued that the notices were without jurisdiction as the building permissions were still intact and no proceedings were initiated under Sections 450 or 452 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the building permission was subject to post-verification under Rule 3(22)(c) of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017, and in case of non-compliance with the relevant rules or false submission, the building permission could be invalidated and deemed to be canceled. The court found that the impugned notices were issued after post-verification and the petitioners had already filed their reply. The court also noted that shortfall notices were uploaded to the login of the licensed Technical Persons.
Issues: 1. Whether the show cause notices issued by the municipal corporation were without jurisdiction. 2. Whether the petitioner's constructions could be termed as unauthorized despite obtaining building permissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 3(22)(c) of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017, which provides for post-verification of building permissions and allows for the invalidation and cancellation of building permissions in case of non-compliance with the relevant rules or false submission. The court held that the impugned notices were issued after post-verification and the petitioners had already filed their reply. The court also noted that shortfall notices were uploaded to the login of the licensed Technical Persons.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no case for interference with the impugned notices was made out. The court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notices and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The court also granted liberty to the petitioners to file a reply to the shortfall notices within two weeks and directed the competent authority to consider the same.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri G. Manikhanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.
2. Notice has been accepted by the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority for the 1st respondent.
3. W.P.No.598 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner High Yield Estates Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the notice dated 24.12.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 461(1) of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Similar notices have been issued to the petitioner with respect to the different buildings being constructed by the petitioner, subject matter of the writ petition.
4. W.P.No.599 of 2023 has been filed by the same petitioner as petitioner No.12 along with 11 other petitioners, to whom the petitioner No.12 has allotted one flat each, in total 11 flats, out of 34 flats of Ac.1.60 cents, in Sy.No.195/2A2. The challenge in this petition is also to the same notices dated 24.12.2022 on the same subject but given separately to all the petitioners.
5. The subject matter of both the writ petitions being the same with the consent of the parties counsels both the writ petitions are being decided by the common judgment.
6. By the impugned notices, the petitioners have been granted time to show sufficient cause within the specified time as to why the action of removal, alteration or pulling down of the building in question be not taken with further direction to the petitioners to stop construction work forthwith.
7. The petitioners have filed reply to the notices on 02.01.2023, inter alia submitting that the petitioners are not making unauthorized constructions but have obtained the building permission on different dates for each building. Along with the reply the petitioners are said to have filed the copy of the building permissions as well.
8. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel submits that the notices proceed on the assumption that the petitioners constructions are unauthorized constructions. He submits that with respect to each building, on the petitioners applications, the building permissions having been granted on different dates in the month of December, 2022. The said building permissions are still intact and not having been revoked or cancelled under the statutory provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act, 1955”) and also there being no proceedings with respect to any alleged deviations either under Section 452, or Section 450 of the Act, 1955, the constructions being raised by the petitioners cannot be said to be unauthorized. Consequently, the notices issued are without jurisdiction and the respondent authorities cannot in law direct the petitioners to stop the construction work.
9. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel, based on the written instructions submits that though the building permission was granted online but such grant is subject to the terms and conditions specified in the building permit itself. One of those conditions is in para No.16 which inter alia provides that the permission was given based on the inputs of pages, documents and drawings provided by the applicant for such building permission. The final approval of proceedings was subject to verification of the report and documents of concerned officials including the site visit report and any deviation identified was to lead modification/rejection of the proceedings for building permission.
10. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy further submits that the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 (in short, “the Rules, 2017”) under Rule 3(22)(c) specifically provides for post verification of building permissions. Shortfall notices were given on 29.12.2022 indicating the shortfall being inter alia (1) that there is no approach road left and (2) layout open space
