WP/27692/2005 of P. Subbaraya Sarma S/o Venkataramana Vs The Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, on 30 December 2005

:O R D E R:

The petitioners herein are owners of flats in apartment block known as BhaskaraSuvass Apartments, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam. They are also members ofM/s. Bhaskara Suvasa Apartment Owners Welfare Association, the secondrespondent herein.

In this writ petition, they seek a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of thefirst respondent-Corporation viz., Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam (for short‘MCV’) in allowing the existence of the residential flat in cellar area of apartmentblock, as illegal and arbitrary. They also seek a consequential direction to the MCVto take appropriate action against the persons who constructed the flat illegally in thecellar area. The petitioners have not arrayed the contravener or the person whoconstructed the cellar area as party respondent to this writ petition.

Be that as it is, it is brought to the notice of this court that against the noticeissued under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation’s Act, 1955,made applicable to MCV, one K.S.M. Raju, the builder filed a suit being O.S.No. 105of 2001 on the file of the Court of learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge,Vishakapatnam and the same was decreed. As against the said judgment anddecree, MCV preferred appeal being A.S.No. 487 of 2004 on the file of the Court oflearned IV-Additional District Judge, Vishakapatnam, which is still pending.Therefore, the first respondent could not have taken any action against the saidK.S.M. Raju for alleged contravention of the building bye-laws and approved plan.

In the background of the case, as seen above, no relief can be granted to thepetitioners as prayed for. However, the first respondent is directed to see that theirappeal being A.S.No. 487 of 2004 pending on the file of the Court of learned IV- Additional District Judge, Vishakapatnam, is disposed of expeditiously. They mayapproach the said court by filing an application seeking expeditious hearing of theappeal.

The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

____________

V.V.S. RAO, J

30-12-2005

pvks/*