WP/8360/2009 of Rodda Sarangapani Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its on 30 December 2010

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

C.C. No. 808 of 2009

andW.P.M.P. (SR) No. 86466 of 2009

Common order:

The petitioner (Sri. Rodda Sarangapani) claims to be the ownerof residential property bearing D. No. 8-3-228/326, Rahmatnagar,Yousufguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registeredsale deed dated 11.03.1998, and since then in possession andenjoyment of the same. While so, he states that respondent No.2 (Sri.Sinkisetti Pandurangaiah), who is his neighbour on the western side,demolished his house, and without obtaining any permission fromrespondent No.1, the Deputy Commissioner, Greater HyderabadMunicipal Corporation, started construction of a new house, withoutleaving any setbacks. On 08.04.2009, when respondent No.2 wasputting up supports for laying R.C.C. roof by encroaching his land andin a manner affecting his easementary right, the petitioner states heobjected to the constructions being made by respondent No.2, and asrespondent No.2 proceeded to make the constructions, he states thaton the same day, he lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 allegingthat respondent No.2 was making constructions in violation of theprovisions of the building regulations, and requested him to stop theillegal constructions being made by respondent No.2. Stating so, andalleging that respondent No.1 did not take any action on his complaint,and taking advantage of the said fact, respondent No.2 wasproceeding ahead with the making of constructions, by encroachinghis property and in a manner affecting his easementary right, thepetitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directionsto respondent No.1.

On 22.04.2009, this Court upon hearing the learned counsel forthe petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission with thefollowing directions:

The 1[st] respondent, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.10, GreaterHyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is directed to consider therepresentation dated 08.04.2009, purported to have been fled by the petitioner, after issuing notice to the 2[nd] respondent pointing out the illegal constructions alleged tohave been made by him, and taking into consideration the reply, if any, to besubmitted by him to such notice, and pass appropriate orders thereon, asexpeditiously as possible.

Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner states that he made arepresentation dated 14.05.2009 to respondent No.1 personallyenclosing a copy of the above order, and thereafter also, he met himpersonally on 05.06.2009, and requested respondent No.1 to takeaction on his complaint, as directed by this Court. However, thepetitioner alleging that respondent No.1 has not taken any action onhis complaint and thereby committed contempt of the orders of thisCourt, filed the present contempt case.

During the pendency of the above contempt case, one

Smt. Laxmi Devi, filed application seeking leave of the Court to file thepresent review petition stating that she is the owner of property bearingNo. 8-3-338/327, and that the petitioner instead of making her party-respondent, has made her husband as party-respondent No.2 in thewrit petition, and that the petitioner himself has made constructionswithout leaving any setbacks and in violation of the plan and municipalbye-laws and regulations, and that when she questioned, he enteredinto an agreement with her on 28.03.2009 agreeing to the termsmentioned therein, and for signing the said agreement, he demandedRs.1,00,000/-, and when she expressed her inability to pay the saidamount, the petitioner appears to have lodged a complaint, andsubsequently complaining inaction, filed the present writ petition andcomplaining non-compliance of the order passed therein, filed thepresent contempt case. She further states that when respondent No.1tried to interfere with her constructions, she filed suit in O.S. No. 3469of 2009 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad, against respondent No.1, and obtained interim injunctionsorders dated 03.08.2009 in I.A. No. 346 of 2009, and the same is stillpending. She further states that the petitioner, himself havingconstructed his building without leaving any setbacks and in violationof the municipal bye-laws and regulations, cannot lodged complaintabout the constructions made by his neighbours.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedcounsel for the review petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel forrespondent No.1-GHMC.

As can be seen the stand taken by the review petitioner, there appear to be long standing disputes between the petitioner and thereview petitioner, and it is the case of the review petitioner that thepetitioner also entered into an agreement on 28.03.2009 with regard tothe constructions made by the petitioner and the review petitioner. This apart, the material filed by the review petitioner shows that shesubmitted a plan for construction for approval and also paid an amountof Rs.3,300/- towards permit for regularization of unauthorizedconstructions of her house on 19.08.2010 vide Bill No. 267 and Sl. No.26606. This apart, the material filed by the review petitioner wouldindicate that she has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 3469 of 2009 on thefile of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, againstrespondent No.1, and obtained interim injunctions orders dated03.08.2009 in I.A.

No. 346 of 2009, and the same is still pending.

Issues

No. 346 of 2009, and the same is still pending.

Be that as it may, though the petitioner contends that theconstructions being made by respondent No. 2, husband of the reviewpetitioner, are illegal and affecting his easementary rights, the factremains, whether or not such constructions being made by respondentNo.2, husband of review petitioner, are illegal or not, whether they arein accordance with the sanctioned plan, whether the allegedconstructions are affecting his easementary rights, are disputedquestions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Thisapart, respondent No.1 in the counter further states that he has verifiedthe records and found that Rahmatnagar falls in the notified slum andthe entire locality has come up unauthorizedly and none of theresidents have proper title deeds/documents in their names, and mostof the houses constructed do not have prior sanction/approval of thecompetent authority. Since the matter with regard to the alleged illegalconstructions being made by the review petitioner, are subject-matterof civil suit, which is pending, if the petitioner is aggrieved by thealleged illegal constructions being made by respondent No.2 or thereview petitioner, as the case may be, is at liberty to get himselfimpleaded in the suit filed by the review petitioner against respondentNo.1 and pursue his remedies.

Be that as it may, even though the writ petitioner contends thatrespondent No.1 has violated the orders dated 22.04.2009 passed bythis Court in W.P. No. 8360 of 2009, the fact remains, a perusal of thecounter filed by respondent No.1 in the contempt case, would disclosethat respondent No.1 upon receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, issued notice dated 09.04.2009 under Section 461 of the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon the review petitioner toproduce the documents and papers for verification for taking necessaryaction. Thereafter, pursuant to and in compliance of the orders dated22.04.2009 passed by this Court, respondent No.1 issued notice dated29.06.2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation Act, 1955 to respondent No.2, husband of the reviewpetitioner, and that the same was even informed to the writ petitionervide letter dated 01.07.2009, giving them seven days time to showcause why the constructions should not be demolished, and that theywould take further action in the matter after considering the reply, inaccordance with law. In view of the above averments made byrespondent No.1 in the counter, it cannot be said that respondent No.1has violated the orders dated 22.04.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 8360 of 2009.

Hence, the contempt case is closed and the review petition,filed by the review petitioner, is disposed of by reviewing the order inthe writ petition, with the observations as made hereinabove. Nocosts.

Dated: 30[th] December, 2010KSR

___________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.