Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
M/s Dasapalla Constructions – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.8753 of 2018, 11408 of 2018 and 37393 of 2018
Decided on : 17-08-2023
G.O.Ms.No.119 and G.O.Ms.No.168 - Building Permission - W.P.Nos.8753 and 11408 of 2018 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief against actions of respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with construction activities and imposing height restrictions, citing violations of building permissions and government orders.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned proceedings of respondent No.3 were set aside as they were found to be contrary to building permit orders and lacking in factual basis. W.P.No.11408 of 2018 was dismissed as infructuous, and W.P.No.37393 of 2018 was also dismissed. The court disposed of W.P.No.8753 of 2018, allowing the respondent No.5 Corporation to initiate action for any deviation from the building permit orders.
Issues: The court considered the sustainability of the impugned proceedings of respondent No.3 dated 23.11.2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the impugned proceedings were contrary to building permit orders and lacked factual basis, setting them aside. The court also dismissed W.P.No.11408 of 2018 as infructuous and W.P.No.37393 of 2018. The court allowed the respondent No.5 Corporation to initiate action for any deviation from the building permit orders.
Final Decision: The impugned proceedings of respondent No.3 were set aside, and W.P.No.11408 of 2018 and W.P.No.37393 of 2018 were dismissed. W.P.No.8753 of 2018 was disposed of, allowing the respondent No.5 Corporation to initiate action for any deviation from the building permit orders.
ORDER :
In W.P.No.8753 of 2018, the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in issuing the proceedings No.54804/21/HQ 32 WEU dated 23.11.2017 requesting to stop further construction on the B-block and to restrict the construction of ‘A’ block to a promulgated height of 26.5 AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level) in the land in an extent of 7,800 square yards in Survey No.363/A of Waltair Ward, Block No.20, VUDA Park, Jalaripeta, Visakhapatnam, notwithstanding the building permission dated 13.11.2015 granted by the respondent No.5 Corporation is challenged as violative of G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 28.03.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012.
2. In W.P.No.11408 of 2018 the action of the respondent No.1 in interfering with the title, possession, occupation and construction activity of the petitioners pursuant to the building permission granted by the respondent No.1 vide proceedings BA.No.14674/2013/DCP-1/G1 dated 13.11.2015, revised vide proceedings B.A.File No.1087/0655/B/Z2/CIR/2017 dated 13.03.2018, in the land in an extent of 7,800 square yards situated in Survey No.363/A, Waltair Ward, Block No.20, VUDA Park, Jalaripeta, Visakhpaatnam, is under challenge on the ground that it is violative of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 28.03.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012.
3. In W.P.No.37393 of 2018, a direction was sought to direct the respondent No.2 to take action against the unofficial respondents 4 and 5 for making construction illegally i.e., over and above the permissible height of 26.5m AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level) in the land in an extent of 7800 square yards situated in Survey No.363/A, Waltair Ward, Block No.20, VUDA Park, Jalaripeta, Visakhpaatnam, in violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the no objection certificate in proceedings No.AO/0177/NOC/Daspalla/2 dated 08.11.2016 issued by the petitioners.
4. The petitioners in W.P.No.8753 of 2018 are the petitioners in W.P.No.11408 of 2018. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.No.87563 of 2018 are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.11408 of 2018. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P.No.8753 of 2018 are the petitioners in W.P.No.37393 of 2018. The petitioners in W.P.No.8753 of 2018 are the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in W.P.No.37393 of 2018. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.No.8753 of 2018 are the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.37393 of 2018.
W.P.Nos.8753 and 11408 of 2018:
5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the original owners possessed with the full and absolute rights of the land in an extent of 7,800 sq.yards in Survey No.363/A, Waltair Ward, Block No.20, Visakhpaatnam, approached the petitioners and executed a development agreement with GPA in favour of the 1st petitioner for development of the said land by constructing a multi storeyed building. The petitioner made an application for building permission to the respondent No.5 Corporation and the respondent no.5 insisted for submission of no objection certificate from the defence authorities i.e., the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the ground that the subject land lies adjacent to the HQ 32 involved with military operations. The petitioners challenged the said action of the respondent No.5 Corporation in insisting for no objection certificate though the said land falls within the exclusive limits of the municipal corporation by filing the W.P.No.7916 of 2012 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The same was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2012 directing the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents and the respondents therein to consider the same in accordance with law without insisting no objection certificate from the respondent authorities. Then the 1st petitioner made an application to the Environment Forests Science and Technology Department for grant of approval for construction in the said land and the AP Coastal Zone Management authority examined and opined that the permission can be accorded for construction vide proceedings l
The impugned proceedings were set aside as they were found to be contrary to building permit orders and lacking in factual basis.
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to building permissions and procedures outlined under municipal law in construction matters.
The court noted that unauthorized construction may be regularized under existing rules if deviations are minor, requiring proper procedures for addressing complaints.
Point of Law : No such 'NOC' from Defence Authority would be necessary if construction is beyond 10 meters from outer wall of defence installation.
Abeyance of superseding defence circular does not revive prior ones; construction rights crystallize under interim regime permissions; NOC not mandatory beyond 50m without statutory backing or state ....
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
