HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22179 of 2009 Date: June 20, 2014 Between:
1. Inderpreet Kour Bagga & 4 others.
… Petitioners And
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22179 of 2009 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the first respondent and learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
2. The petitioners are stated to be absolute owners of 1449 square yards of land in premises Nos.6-3-248/3/1 and 6-3-285/99, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under five different registered sale deeds on 10.05.2001. They submitted an application for sanction of building permission and the 2nd respondent put a condition to surrender 158 square yards of site for proposed road widening at free of cost and on surrendering the same, the 2nd respondent granted permission vide Permit No.45/34 dated 15.04.2004 for construction of cellar, ground and 4 upper floors. The petitioners constructed lower basement, cellar, ground and 6 floors for commercial and residential purposes and completed the same by August 2007. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued a scheme of regularization of illegal constructions vide G.O.Ms.No.901 MA dated 31.12.2007 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.112 MA dated 31.01.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.272 MA dated 28.03.2008. As per the said G.O. the petitioners submitted their application along with all necessary documents and paid required fee on 30.04.2008. When the said application was pending, respondents 2 and 3 tried to demolish the structures and in those circumstances the petitioners filed O.S.No.3673 of 2008 on the file of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, stating that during pendency of the disposal of the BPS application, the respondents cannot resort to any coercive steps for demolition of the buildings. The trial Court accordingly granted order of status quo. During the proceedings in the suit, it was represented by the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation that the application of the petitioners was disposed of on 21.07.2009 rejecting their request. Though there is a remedy of appeal, the constitution of the Appellate Committee did not inspire any confidence on the petitioners, as it consisted of the authority who rejected the application. In those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed challenging the order of rejection dated 21.07.2009.
3. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that Government constituted Appellate Committees for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad area and other Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State vide G.O.Ms.No.395 MA dated 17.06.2009 for reviewing the decision of the competent authority and disposal of objections received under Rule 11. The Appellate Committee consists of senior State Heads of the Department and Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration.
4. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners violated the sanctioned plan and constructed two cellars, ground and 6 upper floors. After considering the application and as the petitioners converted the 5th floor in to swimming pool and further constructed 5th and 6th floors after cut off date, their application was rejected and the rejection order was communicated to them. The Government constituted Appellate Committee and the same was also revised vide G.O.Ms.No.395, dated 17.06.2009. Under the BPS Scheme, no opportunity of hearing is provided while considering the BPS application. It is also stated that the respondent Corporation addressed a letter to the Government about constitution of Committee.
5. When this fact was brought to the notice of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that he will take recourse to the appellate remedy available to him and file appeal before the single Appellate Committee.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are given liberty to file an appeal against the order dated 21.07.2009 of rejection of their BPS application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Appellate Committee shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months thereafter.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 20, 2014 BSB
07 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.22179 of 2009 Date: June 20, 2014 BSB