SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 465

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
P. V. Jagannadh – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2023

The construction of a house without a building permit is illegal and the municipality has a duty to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction.

Headnote:

MUNICIPALITIES ACT - BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - Ss. 204 AND 211 - SUMMARY: The court held that the construction of a house without obtaining a building permit is illegal and that the municipality has a duty to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction. The court directed the municipality to issue a fresh notice to the unauthorized constructors and to take further action in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a piece of land, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the municipality to take action against the unauthorized construction of a house on the land by unofficial respondents. The municipality admitted that the construction was unauthorized and that a notice under Sec. 228 (1 and 2) of the Act was issued to the unofficial respondents, but no further action was taken.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a dispute relating to the title of the property between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, which had to be resolved in a competent civil court. However, the court held that the construction of the house without a building permit was illegal and that the municipality had a duty to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction.

Issues: Whether the construction of a house without a building permit is illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Ss. 204 and 211 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, which require that a building permit be obtained before construction can begin. The court held that the municipality has a duty to take appropriate action against unauthorized construction, including issuing notices and taking further action in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The court directed the municipality to issue a fresh notice to the unauthorized constructors and to take further action in accordance with the law within six weeks from the date of the order.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not taking any action against unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 for illegally constructing building in the land covered by Sy.No.177/2A3 of Penukonda Mandal, Ananthapur District, without any building permission, as illegal and contrary to Ss. 204 and 211 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, (for short "the Act") and consequently sought direction to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 in this regard.

2. As per the case pleaded by the petitioner, he is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.3.83 cents covered by Sy.No.177 of Penukonda Village in Ananthapur District. Land in an extent of Ac.1.78 cents was acquired by the Government for public purpose within the said total extent of Ac.3.83 cents. After alienating part of the said property, the land in an extent of 72 Sq. Yds still remains in the name of the petitioner and he is the absolute owner of the same. It is stated that respondent Nos.6 to 8 unauthorizedly encroached on to the said land and started making construction of house in the said land. So, the petitioner has complained the same to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stating that unofficial respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have been making construction of house without obtaining prior building permission and thereby to take action against them. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that no action has been initiated on the said complaint even though the construction of house is being made contrary to Ss. 204 and 211 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3. Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that dispute inter se the petitioner and the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 is relating to title of the property. However, as regards the construction of house by unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 is concerned, it is admitted that they did not obtain any building permission and the house is constructed without any building permission. So, it is stated that notice under Sec. 228(1 & 2) of the Act was earlier issued to unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8.

4. Respondent No.4 also filed counter stating that it is for the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action which is a local body and respondent No.4 has nothing to do with the grievance of the petitioner.

5. Unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 did not file any counter.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent No.1, Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. As can be seen from the pleadings of both the parties, there is a dispute relating to title in respect of the land in question between the petitioner and unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the land in question and that unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 have illegally occupied the same and constructing a house on it. The unofficial respondents did not file any counter asserting their title to the property. But it is a fact that they are constructing a house in the said land. Therefore, the said dispute relating to title of the property between the petitioner and unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 has to be worked out in the competent civil Court including recovery of possession of the property, if any, by the petitioner.

8. However, the issue that needs to be addressed in this Writ Petition is that as per the case pleaded by the petitioner, unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 have been constructing a house in the said site without obtaining any prior building permission from respondent No.2 as required under law and as such it is an illegal construction and respondent No.2 has to take appropriate steps for demolition of the said house which is be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top