HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.1584 and 1586 of 2014 DATED:11.12.2014 W.A. No.1584 of 2014 Between:
V. Venkateswara Rao … Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Admission Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others … Respondents W.A. No.1586 of 2014 Between:
Sankar Anand … Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Admission Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.1584 and 1586 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) By this common judgment and order, both the appeals are being disposed of.
W.A. No.1584 of 2014
2. As far as the first appeal, being W.A. No.1584 of 2014, in which Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appears for the appellant, is concerned, we are of the view that the Hon’ble Trial Judge has passed just and perfectly balanced order keeping in view the balance of convenience of the parties. The Hon’ble Trial Judge has merely asked the municipal authority to seal the structure in question. It is an admitted position that there has been no lawful sanction or permission, not to speak of any sanctioned building plan, but the structure has been erected and it was being used notwithstanding. Therefore, the matter is pending adjudication before His Lordship and it is directed to be listed on 29.12.2014. However, we clarify that the observations and findings of the Hon’ble Trial Judge will not be taken note of at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.
3. We therefore close this appeal without passing any further order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
W.A. No.1586 of 2014
4. The next matter, being W.A. No.1586 of 2014, has been preferred by a third party and leave was granted to prefer this appeal. It is one of the examples where presumably a third party is a victim to the machination of the law evaders. The appellant, Sri Sankar Anand, assuming that the function hall in question, owned by Sri V. Venkateswara Rao, respondent No.4, (appellant in W.A. No.1584 of 2014) has been lawfully constructed and erected, lawfully booked the same for use for a marriage ceremony, which is to take place tomorrow (12.12.2014), and he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards hire charges.
5. We have recorded yesterday (10.12.2014) in this matter that ordinarily we should not have allowed the appellant to take benefit of illegal and wrongful acts, but there is no time left to make alternate arrangement for shifting the venue of the marriage. Under these circumstances, we have already allowed the appellant to use the function hall of respondent No.4. Said respondent No.4 shall deposit the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), which he has received from the appellant herein, with the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This amount should be invested in a fixed deposit in a suitable bank and the said deposit will abide by the result of the writ petition.
6. We also direct respondent No.4, namely, Sri V. Venkateswara Rao, to disclose the list of the other hirers who booked the function hall in question in past and the amount received from them, if any, and this amount shall also be deposited, because we feel that no person should be allowed to take benefit of an illegality. Until and unless the Hon’ble Trial Judge holds otherwise, the money will be kept in term deposit by the Registrar (Judicial).
7. We further restrain respondent No.4 from making any attempt to invite booking of the said structure for the marriages or for any other occasion in future. Our observations and recording may not be construed to be a binding factor by the Hon’ble Trial Judge, as His Lordship obviously takes always, and decide the matter independently without being influenced or swayed by the observations on merits of the case.
8. It will be unjust if we leave this matter here. It has become a regular feature for some section of people to take benefit of the illegality with impunity. We think that some measure may be taken by the concerned municipal corporation to curb this sort of problem. We therefore direct the municipal authority to give a public notice to the effect that if any person intends to take on hire any permanent building or structure, then they enquire from the owner or person having control of the building or structure whether the same has been lawfully constructed and erected, and that the owners or persons having control of the permanent structure intends to hire must also disclose to the intending hirer or the tenant to the effect that the building has been lawfully constructed taking necessary sanction. If so demanded, a copy of such sanctioned plan shall also be supplied. This measure will hopefully curb the tendency of using or making illegal constructions.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 11.12.2014
Note: L.R. COPY TO BE MARKED.
bnr