Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Konathala Govindarajulu and another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.34563 of 2022
Decided On : 19-06-2023
Building Permit - Grant of Building Permit - Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act - Section 450 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act - The court set aside the building permission granted to the respondents 5 and 6 by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The court directed the GVMC to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and consider any future building permit application with respect to the property in question in view of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the grant of building permit order by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) in favor of respondent No.5 through G.P.A Holder respondent No.6 for construction of a building in an extent of 1500 sq. yards. The petitioners sought to declare the building permit as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree for specific performance of contract in favor of the petitioners had not been complied with or put to execution. The court also found that the petitioners were in possession of the property in question and that the building permission was granted without considering the petitioners' objections and in suppression of material facts affecting the petitioners' rights.
Issues: The main issue was whether the building permit order deserved to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which allows the court to rescind a contract even after passing of the decree of specific performance on specified grounds. The court also referred to Section 450 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, which provides for the power of the Commissioner to cancel permission if granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement.
Final Decision: The court set aside the building permission granted to the respondents 5 and 6 and directed the GVMC to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and consider any future building permit application with respect to the property in question in view of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Smt T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and Sri P. Rama Sharan Sharma, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved from the grant of building permit order vide permit No.1086/2996/ B/Z4/BEM/2020 dated 23.07.2022 by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short, “GVMC”)-the 2nd respondent and its authorities in favour of respondent No.5 through G.P.A Holder respondent No.6, for construction of building in an extent of 1500 sq. yards in sy.No.11/4 F, of Butchirajupalem Village, Near Peela Complex, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, with the prayer to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and to direct the 2nd respondent-GVMC to cancel the said building permit order.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners’ father late Konathala Appa Rao, along with the petitioners purchased an extent of 1522 sq. yards in sy.No.11/4 and 11/5 of Butchirajupalem Village, Near Peela Complex, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam vide registered sale deeds dated 01.06.1989, 03.06.1989 and 03.06.1989 vide Document No.5349/1989, 5353/1989 & 5354/1989 from Vankayala Sakuntala, w/o. Satyanarayana.
4. The 5th respondent late Alapati Marikar and her husband owner towards the Northern side executed an agreement of sale dated 03.06.1989 to an extent of 1500 sq. yards in same Sy.No.11/4 in favour of the Firm Sri Satyanarayana Films represented by its Managing Partner, Sri K. Appa Rao, the petitioners’ father. The vendors after receiving the advance amount, delivered the vacant physical possession of the property under the agreement of sale. The petitioners/their father came in possession and raised a compound wall around total land to an extent of 1552+1500=3052 sq. yards, and also raised thatched and ACC sheet shed constructions.
5. When the 5the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, the Firm filed O.S.No.93 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for specific performance of agreement which was decreed on 18.06.2001, directing the 5th respondent to execute the sale deed as also directing the Firm to deposit the balance of the sale consideration which as per the petitioners’ case was also deposited. However, the 5th respondent filed appeal in A.S.No.2378 of 2001, before this Court which was allowed, the suit was still decreed on 23.10.2009, but modifying the decree of the trial court, and thereby directing the Firm, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000,00/- (one crore) in addition to Rs.3,60,000/- the balance sale consideration, to the 5th respondent and upon receipt thereof the 5th respondent was directed to execute the sale deed, with other consequential directions.
6. The operative part of the judgment dated 23.10.2009 in A.S.No.2378 of 2001 is as under:
“In the result, the judgment and decree in O.S. No.93 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 18-06-2001 are modified by directing the plaintiff either to deposit to the credit of the suit or to pay direct to the defendant Rs.1.00 crore (Rupees one crore only) within two months from today, in addition to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakh and sixty thousand only) payable to the defendant towards the balance of sale consideration under the suit agreement of sale, dated 03- 06-1989 and on such deposit or payment, the defendant shall execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property as per the suit agreement of sale, dated 03-06-1989, in default of which, the plaintiff is at liberty
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to rescind a contract and cancel building permission if granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fr....
The respondent No. 2 cannot take shelter under the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 69/2001. The building permission granted without considering the objections was bad, arbitrary, and against t....
Judicial review cannot adjudicate property title claims while assessing administrative actions; these should be properly contested in court.
Point of law: There is a presumption that public officials would discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with law. Even administrative power to be exercised to fulfill real purpose and not ....
Exemptions from building rules must comply with procedural requirements; failure to provide natural justice in administrative decisions warrants judicial intervention.
Building permits obtained through misrepresentation can be revoked by the Commissioner, emphasizing the necessity for truthful declarations in property disputes.
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
