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) 899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
Jaldu Ram Nitesh, S/o. Jaldu Raja Visala Subba Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others –Respondents
Writ Petition No. 404 of 2023
Decided on : 04-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri G. Vivekananda
For the Respondents: Sri. V. Surya Kiran Kumar

The A.P. Building Rules 2017 do not specify that parking space should be either in the stilt or in the cellar only as per the application and permission obtained.

Headnote:

Occupancy Certificate - Building Permission - A.P. Building Rules 2017 - Rule 111

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the Occupancy Certificate for a shopping mall-cum-multiplex due to deviations in parking space construction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the construction of cellar parking area instead of the approved stilt parking area did not violate the A.P. Building Rules 2017.

Issues: Dispute over the construction of parking space and the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the A.P. Building Rules 2017 did not specify that parking space should be either in the stilt or in the cellar only as per the application and permission obtained.

Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection of the Occupancy Certificate and directed the respondents to consider issuance of the no objection certificate for the subject Shopping Mall cum Multiplex.

ORDER :

Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not issuing the Occupancy Certificate in respect of the shopping mall-cum-multiplex constructed in pursuance of the building permission No.1070/0035/B/MCP/ MAC/2019 dated 26.09.2019 even though the same was constructed in accordance with the building permission and in tune with Rule 111 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.119, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 28.03.2017.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were given building permit order dated 26.09.2019 by the respondent No.2 for construction of multiplex on the application of the petitioners dated 12.02.2019 under Sections 209, 210 and 227 of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and A.P.Building Rules 2017. Some of the details of the permission sanctioned are as under:

The height of the building-multiplex is 15.90 mts. The Ground floor area is 1877.23 (m2) and the area of two upper floors is 5480.28 (m2) and the stilt area for parking is 2,797(m2). The said building permission was sanctioned subject to the conditions mentioned in the building permit order itself dated 26.09.2019. As per the condition No.13 of the permit order, cellar and stilts approved for parking in the plan should be used exclusively for parking of the vehicles without partition walls and the rolling shutters and the same should not be converted or misused for any other purpose. The condition No.22 says that all public and semi public buildings shall provide facilities to physically handicapped persons. As per the building permit order only the construction of the said multiplex was carried out, but instead of providing the stilt floor, cellar floor is provided with the excess parking area than stipulated. It is a RCC roof building. As per the approved plan the stilt floor is to be provided with 2797.79 square metres of site area but in the construction the cellar floor parking area has come upto 3150.00 square metres of site area which is in excess of 300 square metres of parking area. The stilt/cellar as per the approved plan is 24 metres ground level + 0.8 metres and below ground level 3.2 metres. But it has come after construction 4.5 metres in excess of 1.3 metres. Though for modification of the building permit order was applied through the building application form dated 06.12.2021, the authorities said it is not required. Hence, the same is not pursued.

4. Then, the petitioners submitted representations dated 27.12.2022 and 28.01.2023 for issuance of no objection certificate to the respondent No.2-authority. The respondent No.2-Corporation officials inspected the said multiplex-cum-shopping mall and submitted the inspection report dated 13.02.2023. Referring to the same, the respondent No.2 under the impugned proceedings dated 14.02.2023 observed that the applicant made deviations in respect of parking space/stilt as Cellar. Hence, it is refused as per Rule 111(2)(c) of the G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017.

5. To test the above said impugned order dated 14.02.2023, it is necessary to look into some of the relevant rules of the A.P. Building Rules of the year 2017 framed in G.O.M.No.119 MA & UD (M) Department dated 28.03.2017 as under:

Rule 2 (133) reads as follows:

(133) Parking Space

Parking space means an area enclosed or unenclosed, covered or open, sufficient in size to park vehicles, together with a drive-way connections, the parking space with a street or alley and permitting ingress and egress of the vehicles.

Rule 2 (14) reads as follows:

(14) Basement/Cellar

The lower storey of a building below or partly below the ground level, with one or more than one level and to be used for parking of vehicle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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