HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1991 of 2004 DATE: 06.06.2014 Between:
Smt. S.Padmaja ... Petitioner And Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1991 of 2004 ORDER:
The petitioner purchased an extent of 300 sq. yards, bearing Plot No.610 at Jubilee Hills, Road No.33, Hyderabad, having Municipal No.8-2-293/82/A/610/1 under registered sale deed dated 04.09.2002 from the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of a false representation of the 3rd respondent as if the petitioner has consented for construction on the area belonging to the 3rd respondent as well as the petitioner, the 3rd respondent obtained building permission. On coming know of the same, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 28.05.2003 followed by another representation dated 20.09.2003 seeking cancellation of the said permission granted to the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 21.09.2003, cancelled the building permission granted to the 3rd respondent under Section 450 of the HMC Act. In spite of the cancellation of the building permission, the 3rd respondent was going ahead of the construction activity. In those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.
2. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the Corporation received mutual understanding letter dated 07.07.2003 with the signatures of both parties i.e., petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent stating as follows:
“Our land lady Smt. M.Sunanda had applied for permission to construct a building on Plot No.610 in Road No.33, Jubilee Hills. We have purchased a part of land in this plot of area of 300.00 sq. yds. Now, I heard that she has applied for permission on full plot including my land also, for which we have no objection because we are thinking to withdraw the transaction as there is no chance for sub-division in Jubilee Hills. So we are trying to withdraw our money which was already paid to her.”
Accordingly permission was accorded for construction of Ground + 2 upper floors for residential building by Permit No.53/53 dated 22.08.2003. On 25.08.2003 the petitioner submitted an application informing that she has never given consent to the said NOC letter dated 07.07.2003, which was followed by another application dated 20.09.2003 requesting cancellation of building permission. Accordingly building permission was revoked under Section 450 of the HMC Act 1955 on 21.09.2003. Pursuant to the revocation of the permission, the 2nd respondent Corporation has taken action against the construction made at site by stopping the construction work, but the 3rd respondent approached the civil Court and obtained ad-interim injunction orders from the Court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in IA No.1223 of 2003 in OS No.6481 of 2003 dated 04.11.2003 and the Corporation is taking steps to get the injunction order vacated. Thus, the 2nd respondent stated that there is no inaction on the part of the Corporation.
3. Though the 3rd respondent has not filed any counter, counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that there were no constructions on the land belonging to the petitioner and the constructions if any were confined to the land owned and possessed by the 3rd respondent only.
4. It is clear from the above facts that the petitioner purchased an extent of 300 sq. yards from the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent obtained building permission by misrepresenting the facts and subsequently, the permission was revoked. The suit filed by the 3rd respondent in OS No.6481 of 2003 was pending at that time. The petitioner seeks protection of her property. The 2nd respondent shall not authorise the constructions made by the 3rd respondent on the property of the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to see that the 3rd respondent shall not make any constructions on the land of the petitioner even if valid permission is obtained with respect to the property owned by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent is at liberty to take action in accordance with law if any unauthorised constructions are noticed therein.
6. With the above observation, 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: 06.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 5 WRIT PETITION No.1991 of 2004 Date: 06.06.2014 BSS