HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 12068 OF 2006 DATED 12th November, 2014.
BETWEEN K.Nagabhushanam ….Petitioner And The Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, WG District, Rep. by its Commissioner and anr.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 12068 OF 2006.
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned Counsel for the second respondent.
This Writ Petition was filed challenging construction of house by the second respondent in violation of approved building plan in B.A.No.G1/5/06, dated 21.03.2006 and in not taking steps by the first respondent for demolition of the portion of the construction built contrary to the aforesaid approved building plan.
Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 20.10.2014, the first respondent filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the Town Planning Building Overseer visited the premises in dispute-- bearing Door No.7D-1-44-- situated at Eastern Street belonging to the second respondent on 28.10.2014 and noted down the deviations in the said building. Though the said deviations were demolished by the first respondent-Corporation, the second respondent again made construction violating the setback provision in the front side on the road margin. It is further stated that appropriate action against the second respondent will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that not only there were deviations in the front portion, but the entire building was constructed in deviation of the approved building plan and the first respondent ought to have inspected the entire building instead of taking note of the deviations in the front portion only.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to inspect the premises in dispute once again and after noting down the violations made by the second respondent contrary to the approved building plan dated 25.03.2006, take necessary action in respect of the deviated portion in accordance with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 12th November, 2014. Msnrx