HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10630 of 2010 DATED: 23.04.2014 Between:
Dr. M. Sambasiva Rao ... Petitioner And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commission, Vijayawada & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10630 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner is a co-owner of the property admeasuring 950 sq. yards, bearing Municipal D.No.48-11-10/4A, RS No.334/1, situated at Gunadala, Currency Nagar, Vijayawada. The first respondent proposed to widen the existing road and to lay new roads. The property of the petitioner was also affected to the extent of 50% in the proposed 100 ft. road in the Master Plan road from Benz Circle to Ramavarappadu, NH-5 Road. Even after reduction of plot size by 50%, the petitioner decided to develop the property into residential apartment. The petitioner applied for permission to the first respondent and the first respondent accorded permission Vide G.7-B.A.No.02348/2007 dated 28.02.2008 for stilt and upper 5 floors. They also promised to give extra FSI and exemptions in the set backs in view of the land surrendered for the said 100 ft. road. The land was submerged in the water due to heavy rains in the year 2007 and the Surveyor could not identify any boundaries of the land but after identifying the property, the petitioner completed the construction as per the sanctioned plan. The 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the land on the western side, suddenly started objections in the year 2009 stating that he lost 3 ft. land. Though the petitioner offered to pay compensation for the land lost if any by the 3rd respondent, he did not accept the same and on the other hand was pressing respondents 1 and 2 to take action for causing damage to the raised structures. Respondents 1 and 2 issued a notice under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) of the A.P.T.D. Act and Section 452 of the GHMC Act on 10.11.2009. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 15.11.2009 and without considering the same, when the officials of the first respondent visited the site on 17.04.2010 and threatened to demolish the structures, the present writ petition was filed.
3. It appears that the dispute relates to 3 ft. of land lost by the 3rd respondent, at whose instance, the present proceedings had taken place. A perusal of the present proceedings indicate that the petitioner left only 2 meters and 2.5 meters in stead of 3 meters as set backs on the northern side and projections were made in stead of 1.20 meters to an extent of 1.80 meters for the balcony area. The petitioner already lost 50% of the land for the purpose of widening of the road and the petitioner was entitled for certain concessions under the government orders. The petitioner submitted a representation on 15.11.2009. When the officials of the first respondent threatened to demolish the construction, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.
4. In the circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 15.11.2009 to the notice issued on 10.11.2009 and pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing the petitioner in person and issuing notice to the affected parties, if any. It does not prevent respondents 1 and 2 from considering the application filed by the petitioner for regularisation for the deviations if any.
5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 23.04.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 7 WRIT PETITION No.10630 of 2010 Date: 23.04.2014 BSS