Telangana High Court
WP/28193/2008 of V.Seshagiri Rao Vs The Commissioner, on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28193 of 2008 Between: V.Seshagiri Rao S/o.late Pattabhi Ramaiah,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION NO.28193 of 2008
Between:
V.Seshagiri Rao S/o.late Pattabhi Ramaiah, R/o.H.No.9-36-8A, PlotNo.87, Pitapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam.
AND
...PETITIONER
1 The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam.
2 The City Planner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam.
3 M/s. Darshan Associates, A Partnership firm, represented by its Partner Ashok Kumar Jain, S/o. Mulchand Jain R/o. DarshanTowers, Partner Ashok Kumar Jain, S/o. Mulchand Jain R/o. DarshanTowers, Beside Shiva Rama Sweets, Main Road, Visakhapatnam -1.4 Smt.S.Krishnaveni, R/o.Plot No.86, MIG, Pitapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam.4 Smt.S.Krishnaveni, R/o.Plot No.86, MIG, Pitapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue Writ, Order or direction one particularly in thenature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.1and 2 in not taking any action against the Respondents No.3 and 4 formaking construction of high rise building consisting of Ground + fourfloors in Plot No.86 MIG, G.No.9-36-8/1 in Survey No.46 of PitapuramColony, Visakhapatnam without leaving set backs as perG.O.Ms.No.678, Municipal Administration and Urban DevelopmentDepartment dated 7.9.2007 and to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 totake suitable action against Respondents No.3 and 4 to make construction by leaving proper set backs and to demolish such portionof building in Plot No.86 MIG, G.No.9-36-8/1 in Survey No.46 ofPitapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam which offends the set backs asmentioned in G.O.Ms.No.678, Municipal Administration and UrbanDevelopment dated 7.9.2007 and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SOMESWARA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR VUDA) MR.N.RANGAREDDY
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION NO.28193 of 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
According to the petitioner, he built a house in plot No.87, MIG inPitapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam and the unofficial respondent i.e.the fourth respondent is the owner of the plot adjoining the house of thepetitioner. Initially, a small house was constructed in the said plotbelonging to the fourth respondent and the Corporation also gave doornumber as 9-36-8/A. It appears that the fourth respondent gave theentire extent to the third respondent for development of the said plotinto ground floor plus four floors residential building. The third respondent started constructing the house and coming to know that thesaid constructions is contrary to the Building Regulations such as notleaving 2 meters set back etc., the petitioner brought it to the notice of the firstrespondent by personally meeting him and giving a representationdated 31.10.2008. As no action has been initiated, he sent the saidrepresentation again by registered post on 10.11.2008 and26.11.2008. Despite the fact that the first respondent acknowledgedthe said representations, no action has been initiated and hence, thepetitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing counsel forVUDA, this Court is of the view to dispose of the Writ Petition at theadmission stage in the following manner, by dispensing with the noticeto respondents 3 and 4.
The first respondent is hereby directed to consider the saidrepresentations dated 31.10.2008, 10.11.2008 and 26.11.2008 andhold a detailed enquiry and come to the conclusion as to whether thesaid construction made by the third respondent is as per the approvedbuilding plan or not. Now that this Court is dispensing with the usual notice to the unofficial respondents, the first respondent is herebydirected to put respondents 3 and 4 on notice, hear them and passappropriate orders in accordance with law. As it is the contention of thecounsel for the petitioner that the third respondent is proceeding withthe construction in the land in question, the fourth respondent is herebydirected to stop construction till such enquiry by the first respondent iscompleted. The said exercise shall be completed within a period offour {4} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admissionstage.
_________________________
(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
26[th] December 2008RRB