IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Godavarthy Rama Krishna, and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1057 Of 2021
Decided On : 30-07-2024
Mandamus - Writ Petition - Article 226 - Constitution of India - The court analyzed the legality of building constructions in violation of approved plans and the implications of the BPS scheme under G.O.Ms.No.14, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish grounds for intervention.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus against authorities for failing to act against illegal constructions by other respondents, which allegedly violated building permissions and obstructed light and air to the petitioners' premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had applied for regularization under the BPS scheme, and the petitioners did not demonstrate any public safety concerns or legal grounds for the court to intervene in the administrative decision.
Issues: Whether the authorities' failure to act against the alleged illegal constructions constituted a violation of the petitioners' rights and whether the regularization under the BPS scheme was valid despite the delay in application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners failed to prove that the regularization process was improper or that it endangered public safety, thus the administrative decision to regularize the construction was upheld.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
(Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.) :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
2. The present Writ Petition is being filed to obtain mandamus for the authorities' failure to act, despite a representation being made to respondent Nos.1 to 3, which brought to their attention not only about the construction of a building in violation of building rules and regulations and the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have encroached upon the property and have entered into an agreement development with the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and constructed the building without leaving any set-backs with 100% deviation and the said construction is causing irreparable loss and injury and it is obstructing free flow of air and sunlight to the petitioner, but the authority did not act; therefore seeking directions to take action against the respondents for illegal construction, as it is not permitted according to building rules.
3. It is also asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.376 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Chirala for permanent injunction and Interlocutory Application for temporary injunction and the said suit is pending for adjudication.
4. The unofficial respondents have filed their responses, denied the assertions made by the petitioners, and acknowledges that they have built the building violating the building permit, according to the assertion, a new building was constructed in the year 2017 in D.No.24-142, new D.No.4-149, Assessment No.1931, Ravuru Road, Vetapalem Village, and denied the encroachment and obstruction of the free flow of air and sunlight to the petitioners’ premises, and stated that it is invited for the Writ Petition. It is stated that, in fact, the petitioners have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, and the same was dismissed, by circumventing the law, the petitioners have presented the present Writ Petition. The Court's denial of the injunction shows that the petitioners' property was not invaded, inter alia, it is asserted that the BPS scheme was introduced by the government in the year 2019 as per G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 04.01.2019, and they have applied for the scheme and the permission was accorded, vide BPS 2019/PRA/VET/VET/ 41154, dated 09.10.2019, and the building was regularised by the authorities on receipt of an amount of Rs.29,86,064/- for regularisation and the petitioner has attempted to circumvent the law with malicious intention in order to gain wrongful and to cause wrongful loss, hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition with costs.
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter, asserting that as per the G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 04.01.2019, an order was issued by the Government to regularize and penalize the buildings constructed unauthorized and in deviation from approved plans in the jurisdiction of all Gram Panchayats falling in Urban Development Authorities on par with the urban local b
The court emphasized that judicial review of administrative decisions is limited and requires clear evidence of illegality or public safety concerns to intervene.
The court affirmed that any citizen can file complaints regarding unauthorized constructions, emphasizing strict enforcement of planning laws to prevent illegal activities.
The court mandated the Municipality to expeditiously process the pending regularization application for unauthorized construction, emphasizing compliance with statutory timelines and precedents set b....
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized due to administrative delays; strict compliance with building regulations is essential.
The court emphasized the obligation of the 2nd respondent to take action against unauthorised construction under the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920.
Local authorities must act on complaints of unauthorized construction and process regularization applications promptly to uphold governance and ensure compliance with building regulations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.