HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13927 of 2006
Date: June 16, 2014
Between:
B. Satyananda Rao … Petitioner And
1. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner & 11 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13927 of 2006
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents in not taking steps to demolish the flats occupied/owned by respondents 4 to 12 in Sai Praveen Enclave Apartments, Municipal House bearing No.8-3-224/11/4, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad, which were constructed in deviation of the approved plan.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after retirement from his service he purchased a flat in Sai Praveen Enclave, Madhura N a g a r , Hyderabad, through registered sale deed dated 06.07.1996. His vendor P. Kanakadurga Raju obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under Permit No.486/71 dated 04.03.1005, constructed residential building and divided the same into eleven flats. The flat of the petitioner was assessed to property tax and a house number was also given. Subsequent to the purchase of the flat of the petitioner, respondents 4 to 12 purchased other flats and the 6th respondent, who is the owner of the premises, retained flat No.103. The petitioner states that the entire building was constructed in deviation of the approved plan. Pursuant to the scheme announced by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.419 dated 30.07.1998 the petitioner submitted an application seeking regularization of his residential flat and no other flat owners except the 12th respondent has filed application seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction. The 7th respondent started quarrelling with the petitioner and demanded him to vacate the flat. Not only that, they started complaining to the municipal authorities and issued a legal notice to the first respondent and to the petitioner demanding demolition of the flat. A reply notice was issued on 17.05.2006 followed by another representation dated 29.05.2006. Ultimately, the case of the petitioner is that if the flat of the petitioner has to be demolished, similarly the flats of the other occupants also have to be demolished, as the entire building was constructed in deviation of the permit.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that P. Kanakadurga Raju obtained building permission in respect of premises No.8-4-224/11/4 for construction of residential building i.e., stilt (for parking) + 3 upper floors subject to the condition that the parking place provided in the stilt floor should not be misused for any purpose other than parking. Deviating from the said permit, the owner constructed one flat in the stilt floor meant for parking and 3 flats in each floor and also pent house in 4th floor. Subsequently the owner sold the flats to respondents 4 to 12 and it is noticed that the person who obtained permission has not left the required setbacks. Though the petitioner applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.419 dated 30.07.1998, since his flat was constructed in parking area, it is not possible to regularize the same. However, the said G.O. itself was struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in C. Kulsum
[1]
Reddy and others V. State of A.P. Since the entire building was constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan, respondents 1 and 2 issued notices on 12.06.2014 under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) to respondents 4 to 12 and further stated that they would take action in accordance with law after respondents 4 to 12 submitting their explanations for the show cause notices dated 12.06.2014.
5. It is an admitted case of the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2 that the original permit holder P. Kanakadurga Raju after obtaining permission for stilt (for parking) + 3 upper floors constructed a flat in the stilt area, a pent house in 4th floor and 3 flats in each floor. He also did not leave any setbacks. The petitioner filed the present writ petition as the other inmates asked him to vacate the flat. In that background, the petitioner exposed the deviations made by the original permit holder and this Court came to know that the entire building was constructed in deviation of the permit.
6. In the circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to continue their action pursuant to their notices dated 12.06.2014 issued under Section 452 (1) of the Act and take action in accordance with law.
7. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 16, 2014 BSB
05 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13927 of 2006
Date: June 16, 2014
BSB
[1] 2002 (3) ALT 536