HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIION No. 12531 OF 2008 DATED 15th DECEMBER, 2014.
BETWEEN Prathibha Apartments Residents Association, Rep. by its Secretary Sri B.S.S. Chakravarthy, Secunderabad.
….Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIION No. 12531 of 2008.
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and learned Counsel for the fourth respondent.
The petitioner is a residents’ association of apartments, called as ‘Prathibha Apartment Residents Association’. The said apartments were constructed by the third respondent comprising of 54 flats and its construction was completed in the year 1988. Initially the building was constructed with the sanction of cellar, ground and three upper floors and subsequently fourth and fifth floors were added after obtaining due permission from respondents 1 and 2. The fourth respondent was running a diagnostic centre i n the approved/regularized cellar portion of the petitioner’s-
apartments. It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of 6000 square feet was encroached in the cellar and drive way causing inconvenience to the residents of the said apartment and that though there are 56 flats, parking place is available to only 22 flat owners. Pursuant to the general direction of this Court in Contempt Case No. 101 of 1996, dated 28.02.1996, respondents 1 and 2 issued a notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act to remove the encroachments made in the parking area leaving the diagnostic centre run by the fourth respondent. When no action was taken by the official respondents for removal of the diagnostic centre, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the building permit No.205/7, dated 6.6.1988.
The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that due permission has been granted for construction of cellar, Ground + three upper floors in Premises No.9-1-150 and 151 vide permit No. 9241, dated 06.11.1985. The building was completed in the year 1988. The owner/builder has applied for revised plan to modify the cellar portion and the Corporation, after considering the same, has granted permission vide permit No.205/7, dated 6.6.1988 with modification in the cellar portion. When it came to the notice of the Corporation that the cellar portion was converted into other use, a notice under Section 636 of the HMC act was issued and the unauthorized structures in the cellar portion were removed. The rooms in occupation of the fourth respondent in cellar portion were built as per the revised permit No. 205/7, dated 6.6.1988 and hence no action was taken for removal of the same.
The fourth respondent also filed a counter affidavit stating that twenty years ago the builder was permitted to enclose a portion of the space towards the front side of the building by the Municipal Corporation in consideration of handing over the portion of the property affected by road widening. The existing construction was permitted and regularized by the municipal corporation. It exists from 1986 in a space not accessible for any parking in view of the ramp and absence of access. It is stated that the petitioner-association collects maintenance charges and corpus fund charges separately from the fourth respondent. Thus the petitioner allowed the fourth respondent to continue the said premises for the last twenty years.
Realizing the maintainability of the case in the face of permit, the petitioner now sought to challenge permit No. 205/7, dated 6.6.1988. This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2008 after a lapse of twenty years from the date of sanction of the amended/revised permit in respect of the cellar portion. The fourth respondent has been continuing in the regularized construction made in the cellar portion since 1986 and even the petitioner-association is collecting maintenance and Corpus fund charges from him. As per the general direction of this Court in C.C.No. 101 of 1996, dated 28.2.1996, a notice under Section 636 of the HMC act was issued for removal of the unauthorized constructions in cellar and accordingly the respondents have removed unauthorized constructions in the petitioner’s-apartments. However, the area in the occupation of the fourth respondent was found to be permitted by respondents 1 and 2 under permit No. 205/7, dated 6.6.1988.
Broached from this perspective, the Writ Petition suffers from laches and there is no valid ground to grant the relief as sought for.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 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 15th December, 2014. Msnrx