HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18607 of 2010
Date: July 17, 2014
Between:
Mynavarapu Narasimha Sarma … Petitioner And
1. The Eluru Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Eluru, West Godavari District & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18607 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Journalist Colony, Ameenapeta, Eluru, West Godavari District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.219, dated 04.03.1994, allotting 5 housing plots having Ac.0.05 cents each in R.S.No.36/B situated in Journalist Colony, Ameenapeta, Eluru, to 5 journalists. The petitioner got Plot No.4 measuring 242 square yards in R.S.No.36/4 from one Gundu Vallishwar (original allottee) under a registered document No.2634/1999. Thereafter he got regularization in respect of 83 square yards of site vide Proceedings dated 15.06.2009 from the District Collector-cum- Chairperson of District Standing Committee, West Godavari District. Thus, he came in possession of an extent of 325 square yards. He constructed ground floor in 1999. Thereafter he also constructed first and second floors by obtaining sanction in B.A.No.40/214/42 dated 15.02.2001 from the first respondent. He also extended the building after obtaining permission from the first respondent on 29.04.2009. While so, the 2nd respondent, who is residing on the southern side and who purchased 242 square yards from one K. Ramakrishna (original allottee) under Document dated 04.01.1997, filed W.P.No.24677 of 2009 before this Court alleging illegal constructions were made by his late father. He also filed W.P.No.26367 of 2009 for the same relief. He also filed C.C.No.396 of 2010 alleging violation of the orders of this Court and the first respondent conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that no illegal constructions were made by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that a compromise between him and the 2nd respondent was entered before the elders on 12.12.2009 and as per the said compromise the 2nd respondent withdrew W.P.No.26367 of 2009 and submitted no objection letter to the first respondent. Not satisfied with this, the 2nd respondent filed another W.P.No.13806 of 2010 and the same was disposed of at the admission stage permitting the petitioner therein to make an appropriate representation before respondents 2 and 3 therein furnishing the details of alleged unauthorized constructions together with supporting material and the respondents were directed to conduct an enquiry after giving due notice to the petitioner therein as well as the 4th respondent in the said writ petition. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent issued a notice on 22.07.2010 directing the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent to attend before him on 29.07.2010. The petitioner attended the enquiry on 29.07.2010 and submitted his explanation. The 2nd respondent also attended the enquiry. In spite of the same, when there is a threat of demolition of structures, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit admitting that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of extension in ground floor and first floor to the existing G+2 floors building on 29.04.2009 in their site of an extent of 271.63 square metres at D.No.27-1-36 in R.S.No.36/6, Journalist Colony, Ameenapeta, Eluru. The petitioner constructed the extensions in G+2 floors and constructed 3rd floor unauthorizedly by deviating the sanctioned plan. In respect of the unauthorized construction, the first respondent issued a notice under Sections 452 and 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), to the petitioner on 21.10.2009. The first respondent also states that the 2nd respondent filed earlier writ petitions. The petitioner submitted a representation for regularization of unauthorized constructions, but the said representation was rejected by the Corporation, since the deviations in respect of the setbacks are exceeding more than 10%. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25546 of 2009 seeking a direction not to demolish illegal constructions and to consider the representation submitted to the notice under Section 452 A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. This Court directed the respondent not to demolish the structures till the application submitted under Section 452-A of the Act is disposed of. However, his request was rejected on 07.05.2010. An enquiry was conducted on 29.07.2010 pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.13806 of 2010 dated 22.06.2010. After considering the case of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent, the first respondent issued notice under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Act to the petitioner on 30.07.2010 to demolish the illegal constructions made by him deviating the sanctioned plan and served on the petitioner on 31.07.2010.
4. The 2nd respondent filed an additional counter stating that the writ petitioner along with other journalists pressurized the petitioner to agree for a settlement and obtained his signatures on white papers. The blank signed papers were kept with one Venkata Ramana and B.M. Anand. He states that he never gave his consent for raising unauthorized structures to the petitioner.
5. The above averments clearly show that the petitioner purchased an extent of 242 square yards initially and thereafter got regularized 83 square yards of land in Survey No.36/6 of Journalist Colony, Ameenapeta, Eluru, West Godavari District. Initially he constructed a ground floor in 1999 and thereafter constructed first and second floors by obtaining sanction on 15.02.2001. He extended the said building by obtaining permission again on 29.04.2009. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent, the matter was enquired by the first respondent and ultimately a notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.07.2010 to demolish the illegal constructions made by him deviating the sanctioned plan and it was served on him on 31.07.2010. The so called compromise, which is disputed by the 2nd respondent, cannot be countenanced by this Court in the present proceedings. When the first respondent is taking steps in accordance with law, this Court cannot interdict such an action.
6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to inspect the premises owned by the petitioner once again and if there is any necessity to issue a supplementary notice after noticing the constructions, it may be issued to the petitioner in addition to the notice issued on 30.07.2010 and the petitioner is given liberty to submit his explanation within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of such notice by the first respondent. If the first respondent does not feel that no further notice is required in view of the notice issued on 30.07.2010, he will be at liberty to take further action in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: July 17, 2014 BSB
9 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18607 of 2010
Date: July 17, 2014
BSB